Content uploaded by Wanda Krause
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wanda Krause on Feb 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring Gender
at Work
Multiple Perspectives
Edited by
Joan Marques
Exploring Gender at Work
Joan Marques
Editor
Exploring Gender
at Work
Multiple Perspectives
Editor
Joan Marques
Woodbury University
Burbank, CA, USA
ISBN 978-3-030-64318-8 ISBN 978-3-030-64319-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64319-5
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Obsolete Program
We’re programmed to compete
Against our sisters and brothers
We’re programmed to get ahead
At the dreadful expense of others
We’re programmed to wish
Bad luck upon our rival
We’re programmed to think
That superiority equals revival
We’re programmed to develop
Ego’s with gigantic sizes
We’re programmed to look down
On everyone who’s in crisis
We’re programmed to chase wealth
And achieve it at any cost
We’re programmed to build walls
That help us to get others lost
We’re programmed to march along
In a parade we may not even like
We’re programmed to accept
That our life’s a hopeless hike
We’re programmed to tolerate
Hierarchies, in-groups, and strife
We’re programmed to favor
A dollar over the rescue of a life
We’re programmed to ignore
That we’re firmly conditioned
We’re programmed to believe
That we’re immovably positioned
We’re programmed to think
That this is all there is
We’re programmed not to question
Whether anything’s amiss
But if we really want
We can escape this mental penitentiary
That was a dark-aged invention
And doesn’t work in the 21st century
It’s time for increased awareness
To turn the tide of annihilation
And lead us onto the path
Of mutual respect and salvation
—Joan Marques
Preface
This collective volume was created through a wonderful collaboration
of 39 authors, representing five global continents and a wide range of
academic and practical disciplines. It reviews gender from the stand-
points of inequality in multiple regards, such as through discrimination,
stereotyping, maintaining prejudice through oftentimes longstanding,
unconscious biases, industry influences, but also based on cultural, reli-
gious, political, and other boundaries. These many different gender
evaluations actually affect human beings in a troublesome way in the
place where they aim to perform and excel: their workplace. In order
to provide a broad survey of the topic, this book consists of four parts:
(I) A Historical Overview, (II) Contemporary Gender-Based Issues, (III)
Gender Approaches Across the Disciplines, and (VI) Cultural Influences
and Gender.
In Chapter 1,History of Empowerment: How Far Have We Come?
Debra J. Dean and Laureen Mgrdichian review several critical movements
in American culture that attempted to elevate society toward gender
equality. They identify several milestones in the movement toward gender
equality in America, many which have political, economic, social/cultural,
and technological (PEST) roots. These authors also describe some
dramatic shifts in the demographic landscape of the workplace, and subse-
quently discuss gender equality roles as displayed in different forms of
media, thereby emphasizing the ways in which the various roles shifted in
the mind of the American consumer over decades.
vii
viii PREFACE
In Chapter 2,Patriarchy, Religion, and Society, Douglas Cremer takes
us on a historical journey across the globe to point out the long-
established binary gender identities that exist on basis of biological sex,
assigning gender roles based on external sexual attributes. He clarifies that
these gender identities correspond to religious, moral, and political norms
in many societies, oftentimes establishing preferential leadership roles to
biological males, who exhibit strong masculine traits and characteristics.
This often happens with contestation from who exhibit different qualifi-
cations, such as women who demonstrate the requisite masculine traits, or
biological men who do not exhibit the typical traits of paternal leadership.
In Chapter 3,Gender-Based Inequality in the Modern American Society,
Emerald M. Archer admits that there have been significant changes
in gender relationships over the course of the twentieth century, but
also emphasizes that inequalities between women and men remain chal-
lenged in all spheres of life in the twenty-first century. She presents the
disturbing reality of the lower pay that so many equally qualified women
still receive in workplaces compared to their male colleagues, the general
reality of women shouldering most of the domestic load (e.g., childcare,
housework), and the persisting trend of women holding fewer execu-
tive positions in corporate America or as elected officials. Archer thereby
explores theoretical perspectives from sociology, psychology, political
science, and social cognition that elucidate how gender differences and
hierarchies function and persist over time.
Part II of this collective work, titled Contemporary Gender-Based
Issues, starts with Chapter 4,Gender and Communication: Are There
Decisive Differences? In this chapter, Mercedes Coffman and Joan
Marques examine gender communication differences in professional
settings, positing that masculine rhetoric is labeled as decisive, direct,
rational, authoritative, logical, aggressive, and impersonal, while feminine
rhetoric is usually described as cautious, receptive, indirect, emotional,
conciliatory, subjective, and polite. In highlighting myriad ways in which
gender communication differences have branded men and women these
authors analyze the most common stereotypical classifications of gender-
related communication, provide a contemporary view on whether these
classifications are myths or reality, and how they should be addressed in
this third decade of the twenty-first century.
Birute Regine elaborates on gender stereotypes in Chapter 5,The
Conundrum of Gender Stereotypes. She acknowledges that these stereo-
types generally associate men with achievement, competence, ambition,
PREFACE ix
and independence, and women with caring, nurturing, and concern for
others. Regine stresses that these assumptions impede women’s profes-
sional development, while they also impede men’s emotional develop-
ment, since they are forced to reject and deny any vulnerabilities. The
conundrum that Regine discusses in this chapter is the fact that men need
to dominate and assert their power in order to confirm gender stereotypes,
while women resist and struggle to break through stereotypes. She also
reveals the conundrum that emerges when we look for autocratic traits in
our leaders but value a democratic work environment.
In Chapter 6,Masculinity at Work, Jody A. Worley first describes
possible enactments of masculinity in the workplace, and subsequently
explores the effects that aspects of masculinities have on the daily lives
of employees in the workplace, including mismatches, tensions, and
resistances such as retribution or imposter syndrome. Worley considers
how these aspects of masculinity shape the organizational climate and
behavioral norms in the workplace, along with the fact that implications
might include behavioral, affective, or somatic responses such as anxiety
and stress, aggression, adaptive or maladaptive risk-taking, avoidance of
femininity and more.
An important review of the way gender stereotypes affect the marketing
of the sexes is presented by Thuc-Doan Nguyen in Chapter 7,Gender
Stereotypes: The Profiling of Women in Marketing. Nguyen provides a
meta-analysis of research on gender stereotypes in advertising and content
analysis of “how to market to women” in practical marketing guidelines
and academic research. Pointing out the strong stereotypes of profiling
women mostly as sexually attractive and young, she finds that some
marketers now present more realistic female images. Nguyen accentuates
that the female market is heterogeneous, and that women play multiple
roles in daily life, while traditional roles are just a few among many.
Lizabeth Kay Kleintop presents us in Chapter 8,Deciding to Be
Authentic: Transgender Employees and Their Decision to Be Out at Work,
the reality of the transphobia transgender employees could experience at
work when they come out, entailing exclusion from jobs, unfair work
schedules, ridicule, homophobic jokes, bullying, shunning, sexual and
physical harassment, job loss, and more. Kleintop asserts that transgender
employees challenge norms of gender that are reinforced in interac-
tions with others in a social process of gender authentication that may
result in transphobia. She emphasizes that change agents in organi-
zations can support transgender workers in making their decisions by
xPREFACE
understanding the role of gender in their organizations and use that
understanding to create interventions, including educating co-workers,
with the goal of reducing transphobia and increasing perceptions of an
inclusive environment.
Entering Part III, Gender Approaches Across the Disciplines,
Chapter 9, is titled, Gender Diversity, Unconscious Bias, and Leadership
for Organizational and Planetary Health.
In this chapter, Wanda Krause and Elizabeth Hartney explain why
gender diversity is beneficial for organizations and institutions. They
define gender diversity in a way that goes beyond the discourse around
men and women to include non-binary gender identities, cultural
symbols, and archetypes, and provide a focus on the need to include
those marginalized at the leadership level and at all levels of privilege and
power in society. Krause and Hartney argue that the different genders
come from different social contexts and experience distinctly different
challenges, and thus lead in different ways. They accentuate that gender
diversity is essential not only for equality but for leadership effectiveness
and organizational impact, thereby enhancing psychological, societal, and
planetary health.
In Chapter 10,Working More Effectively with Non-binary Colleagues,
Wiley C. Davi and Duncan H. Spelman focus on the experiences of
gender non-binary people in the workplace and provide resources to
increase the effectiveness in working with non-binary colleagues. To
work more successfully with gender non-conforming colleagues, Davi
and Spelman emphasize the importance of understanding ourselves and
how we operate within these spaces. They argue that each of us is more
successful interpersonally if we first do work on ourselves intrapersonally.
Chapter 11,Gender Equality & Gender Equity: Strategies for Bridging
the Gender Gap in the Corporate World, presents the importance of
gender equity in organizations, as researched and concluded by Radha R.
Sharma and Sonam Chawla. These authors particularly focus on the crit-
ical difference between gender equity and equality, and provide a variety
of strategies for bridging the gender gap such as gender diversity indices,
corporate governance codes, Blau and Shannon index, and gender-based
legislation which have been adopted by various countries in recent years.
Sharma and Chawla also discuss the importance of gender diverse boards
through enforcement of non-mandatory and mandatory mechanisms like
corporate governance codes and legislations.
PREFACE xi
A call for women to take a hard look at their lack of support to
one another lies at the foundation of Chapter 12,Restoring the Lead-
ership Balance: WOMEN UNITE. In this chapter, Joan Marques and
Mercedes Coffman address the remarkable fact that women, in spite of
long-term higher percentages in college graduations, and having been
confirmed to lead more effectively than male leaders, only hold 21% of
C-suite positions. They evaluate a series of foundational reasons for this
to occur, from self-deprecation to lack of mentorship, and from exces-
sive competition among one another to relational aggression. The chapter
introduces the acronym “WOMEN UNITE” to serve as a support system
for women who are eager to restore the leadership balance, and doing so
in a consciously and morally responsible way.
Chapter 13,What Hinders Me from Moving Ahead? Gender Identi-
ty’s Impact on Women’s Entrepreneurial Intention, presents a compelling
perspective from Eleftheria Egel, postulating that research on female
innovation-driven entrepreneurialism demonstrates that the number of
start-ups by women worldwide still lags that of their male counter-
parts. Egel asserts that this is in part due to women’s lower level of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy which impacts their entrepreneurial inten-
tion negatively. Using the concept of multiple identities seen from a
psychodynamic perspective, Egel explores how female entrepreneurs’
identity affects their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. She thereby reviews
female entrepreneurs’ identity as part of their multiple identities situated
within their self-concept, and ultimately offers the adoption of “metaxu”
as an ontological concept on how women entrepreneurs can reconcile
their multiple identities and bring their best at work.
In Chapter 14,Reviewing Representations of the Ubiquitous
“Entrepreneurs Wife”, Robert Smith and Lorraine Warren examine
academic literature and media representations, and in particular gendered
social constructions of the “Entrepreneurs wife” as a distinctive,
entrepreneurial identity. The research these authors engaged in developed
their understanding of gendered entrepreneurial identities and narratives
as socially constructed. They conclude that developing a better under-
standing of the personal sides of entrepreneurial couples would be helpful
to policymakers in understanding the entrepreneurial personality more
holistically because of the financial stability that a long-term partnership
brings to an entrepreneurial venture.
The title of Chapter 15 is Strategies to Build Women Leaders Glob-
ally: Think Managers, Think Men; Think Leaders, Think Women.Inthis
xii PREFACE
chapter, M. S. Rao, presents an inspirational view on the skills and qual-
ities of women, debunking myths about women leaders, and drawing
a blueprint for women to fast-track their careers by equipping them
with soft skills, networking skills, and negotiation skills. Dr. Rao thereby
encourages women in the workplace to overcome queen bee syndrome
and implores successful senior women leaders to handhold young and
ambitious women leaders. He also calls upon women to smash through
the glass ceiling, to refrain from shying away from responsibilities, and to
stay in the game by learning and leading.
In Chapter 16,Feminism: Legitimate, Fearful, or Feared, Amelia F.
Underwood and Debra J. Dean dive into the Bible to evaluate the role of
women and the relationship between the historical context and modern-
day presumptions that exist. Their review of named females in the Bible
includes the likes of Bathsheba, Deborah, Mary Magdalene, and others.
Underwood and Dean use their exegetical analysis to assist them in exam-
ining the modern-day role of women regarding their rights, roles, and
responsibilities in society.
Entering the fourth and final part, Cultural Influences and Gender,
Chapter 17 is titled, If Iceland Is a Gender Paradise Where Are the Women
CEOs of Listed Companies. In this chapter, Ásta Dís Óladóttir, Þóra Chris-
tiansen, and Gylfi Dalmann Aðalsteinsson acknowledge that Iceland has
made the greatest progress towards closing the Gender Gap, but also
accentuate that no woman is CEO of a listed company on the Icelandic
stock exchange in 2020. These authors find that women CEOs are more
likely to lead small enterprises, and that women count for only 13% of
CEOs in larger Icelandic companies. The chapter reports on the results
of a survey of Icelandic women business leaders regarding their beliefs on
why no woman is CEO of a listed company in Iceland and what actions
they deem feasible to increase the number of women in senior positions.
Responses from 189 women revealed that they feel that action must be
taken, even legislative, such as enforcing gender quotas for executive posi-
tions, business cultures, and attitudes must change, women need more
opportunities.
Chapter 18 takes us to Turkey. Titled, Senior Executive Women’s Views
on Female Solidarity: The Role of Perceived Gender Salience, this study,
presented by Belgin Okay-Somerville and Gamze Arman, explores senior
female executives’ views on supporting female subordinates in managerial
careers. The authors provide a distinctive approach to female managerial
career development by contextualizing the study in Turkey, where several
PREFACE xiii
socioeconomic trends with competing influences on women’s place in
society are observed. Based on the findings from semi-structured inter-
views with 29 Turkish senior executive women, the authors posit that
there is still limited evidence of support for improving women’s represen-
tation in the boardroom. The findings of this study highlight the role of
perceived gender salience of the context on which senior executive women
anchor their views.
In Chapter 19,Gender Quota for Workplace Inclusivity: A Mere Band-
Aid? Vartika Singh presents the case of India. She thereby focuses on
the issue of gender diversity in corporate boards, with particular focus on
India, and finds that women representation in the corporate boardrooms
has been dismal. She stresses that this has nothing to do with merit, but
concludes that gender quotas are necessary, even though they are not
enough to solve the problem of workplace exclusion of women. Singh
proposes solutions to make corporate workplaces more gender inclusive.
Chapter 20,Creating Inclusion for Transwomen at Work Through
Corporate Social Responsibility: The Contributions of Bandhu in
Bangladesh, presents another gender issue, captured by Enrico Fontana.
He affirms that, despite their acknowledgment in 2013 as a separate
gender and as they have been increasingly referred to as third gender,
transwomen in Bangladesh continue to lack employment opportuni-
ties and remain among the most vulnerable segments of the popu-
lation. Fontana places the spotlight on the crucial contribution of
Bandhu, a human rights and non-governmental organization, to creating
transwomen inclusion. In this chapter, Fontana presents an impor-
tant learning tool for industry practitioners, government professionals,
activists, and educators who are interested in human rights and in under-
standing how to better create inclusion for transwomen at work in South
Asia.
Another journey is presented in Chapter 21:Working While Homo-
sexual in South Africa: Where Are We Now? Prepared for this collective
work by Lusanda Sekaja, Ikraam Kraft, Catherine Lötter, Nadia Daniel,
M. Christina Meyers, and Byron G. Adams. These authors affirm that,
while in post-democratic South Africa homosexual people are consid-
ered equal to heterosexual people, this constitutional equality does not
always translate into practical equality for various reasons, in particular,
religion. The authors evaluate the experiences of gay and lesbian South
African employees from three empirical studies over the past five years.
Results indicated that for gays and lesbians, negative experiences at work
xiv PREFACE
are still a reality, while religion continues to fuel stereotypes, prejudice,
and discrimination.
Chapter 22,Unfinished Business: Advancing Workplace Gender Equity
Through Complex Systems Strategies Supporting Work/Family Dynamics
calls for increased balance in the lives of all genders involved in the
workplace. This is where Ester R. Shapiro and Emu Kato admit that
gender workplace equity remains a “stalled revolution,” and suggest
that work/family dynamics supporting challenges of care for the most
vulnerable—children, elders, the disabled, adults experiencing ill health—
need to be revisioned. They contend that gendered inequalities maintain
stability through entangled forces at multiple levels, but that they can
be transformed through problem-and-setting specific ecological analysis,
identifying leverage points for maximum impact toward achieving valued
outcomes. They thereby apply transdisciplinary cultural/developmental
systems perspectives on the gendered, interdependent life-course, high-
lighting shared individual, family/kin, business, and public responsibilities
toward supporting work and caretaking.
Candy Williams ends this collective work on a lighter note with
Chapter 23,Men, Women, and Work-Life Balance: Then, Now and in the
Future. Williams first points out the difference between work–life balance
and work–life integration. She thereby reviews married and single individ-
uals, with and without children. Williams refers to the reality of a changed
economy, with increases in the cost of living, and the requirements of
many adults to work to support their families. She also addresses the
assumed responsibility of many women to secure care of family members,
which often affects their ability to advance in their careers.
On behalf of the 39 contributing authors to these chapters, repre-
senting 12 nations in five global continents, I hope that this book will
contribute to the dialogue of gender equity, equality, inclusion, and
mutual acceptance and respect, through the multidisciplinary perspectives
pertaining to gender issues and relationships at work.
Burbank, USA Joan Marques
Contents
Part I Gender: A Historical Overview
1 History of Empowerment: How Far Have We Come? 3
Debra J. Dean and Laureen Mgrdichian
2 Patriarchy, Religion, and Society 25
Douglas J. Cremer
3 Gender-Based Inequality in the Modern American
Society 45
Emerald M. Archer
Part II Contemporary Gender-Based Issues
4 Gender and Communication: Are There Decisive
Differences? 67
Mercedes Coffman and Joan Marques
5 The Conundrum of Gender Stereotypes 85
Birute Regine
xv
xvi CONTENTS
6 Masculinity at Work 103
Jody A. Worley
7 Gender Stereotypes: The Profiling of Women
in Marketing 123
Thuc-Doan Nguyen
8 Deciding to Be Authentic: Transgender Employees
and Their Decision to Be Out at Work 139
Lizabeth Kay Kleintop
Part III Gender Approaches Across the Disciplines
9 Gender Diversity, Unconscious Bias, and Leadership
for Organizational and Planetary Health 161
Wanda Krause and Elizabeth Hartney
10 Working More Effectively with Non-binary Colleagues 181
Wiley C. Davi and Duncan H. Spelman
11 Gender Equality & Gender Equity: Strategies
for Bridging the Gender Gap in the Corporate World 197
Radha R. Sharma and Sonam Chawla
12 Restoring the Leadership Balance: WOMEN UNITE 213
Joan Marques and Mercedes Coffman
13 What Hinders Me from Moving Ahead? Gender
Identity’s Impact on Women’s Entrepreneurial
Intention 231
Eleftheria Egel
14 Reviewing Representations of the Ubiquitous
“Entrepreneurs Wife” 253
Robert Smith and Lorraine Warren
CONTENTS xvii
15 Strategies to Build Women Leaders Globally: Think
Managers, Think Men; Think Leaders, Think Women 275
M. S. Rao
16 Feminism: Legitimate, Fearful, or Feared 297
Amelia F. Underwood and Debra J. Dean
Part IV Cultural Influences and Gender
17 If Iceland Is a Gender Paradise, Where Are the Women
CEOs of Listed Companies? 317
Ásta Dís Óladóttir, Þóra H. Christiansen,
and Gylfi Dalmann Aðalsteinsson
18 Senior Executive Women’s Views on Female
Solidarity: The Role of Perceived Gender Salience 339
Belgin Okay-Somerville and Gamze Arman
19 Gender Quota for Workplace Inclusivity: A Mere
Band-Aid? 361
Vartika
20 Creating Inclusion for Transwomen at Work Through
Corporate Social Responsibility: The Contributions
of Bandhu in Bangladesh 385
Enrico Fontana
21 Working While Homosexual in South Africa: Where
Are We Now? 407
Lusanda Sekaja, Ikraam Kraft, Catherine Lötter,
Nadia Daniel, M. Christina Meyers, and Byron G. Adams
22 Unfinished Business: Advancing Workplace Gender
Equity Through Complex Systems Strategies
Supporting Work/Family Dynamics 425
Ester R. Shapiro and Emu Kato
Editor and Contributors
About the Editor
Joan Marques has reinvented herself from a
successful media and social entrepreneur in
Suriname, South America, to an innovative
“edupreneur” (educational entrepreneur) in
California, USA. Her entrepreneurial career
spans over four decades, and includes the
creation and successful management of compa-
nies in Public Relations and Advertising,
Import and Export, Real Estate, Media
Productions, and a Non-Profit, focused on
women’s advancement. In the US, she has
been a co-founder of the Business Renaissance
Institute,andtheAcademy of Spirituality and
Professional Excellence (ASPEX).
Based on her impressive career and ongoing
influence, Dr. Marques was awarded the
highest state decoration of her home country,
Suriname: Commander (Commandeur) in the
Honorary Order of the Yellow Star, in 2015.
That same year, she was also awarded the Dr.
Nelle Becker-Slaton Pathfinder Award from the
xix
xx EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS
Association of Pan-African Doctoral Scholars
in Los Angeles, for her exemplary and ground-
breaking professional performance. In 2019,
she was awarded the Kankantrie Life Time
Achievement Award for her accomplishments
in Education from the Suriname American
Network Inc. in Miami, FL. In 2016, she was
granted the Faculty Scholarly-Creative Award
as well as the Faculty Ambassador Award, both
awarded by Woodbury University’s Faculty
Association.
Joan holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences
(focus: Buddhist Psychology in Management)
from Tilburg University’s Oldendorff Grad-
uate School; and an Ed.D. in Organiza-
tional Leadership (focus: Workplace Spiritu-
ality) from Pepperdine University’s Graduate
School of Education and Psychology. She also
holds an M.B.A. from Woodbury University
and a B.Sc. in Business Economics from MOC,
Suriname. Additionally, she has completed
post-doctoral work at Tulane University’s
Freeman School of Business.
Dr. Marques is a frequent speaker and
presenter at academic and professional venues.
In 2016, she gave a TEDx-Talk at College of
the Canyons in California, titled An Ancient
Path Towards a Better Future, in which she
analyzed the Noble Eightfold Path, one of
the foundational Buddhist practices, within the
realm of contemporary business performance.
In recent years she has conducted presen-
tations and workshops on multiple forums,
such as at the Management, Spirituality, and
Religion research colloquia at the Academy
of Management Annual Meetings in 2018
and 2019 on Phenomenology as a Qualita-
tive Research Method; a keynote address titled
Ethical Leadership: How Morals Influence Your
EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS xxi
Communication at the Center for Commu-
nication and Public Relations, in Paramaribo,
Suriname, and an interactive workshop with
thought leaders and development coaches at
the Knowledge and Expertise Center Suri-
name, titled On Leadership, Ethics and Social
Responsibility. In 2019 and 2020 she also
represented her home country Suriname on
the annual CALIFEST literary festival in Los
Angeles, where she conducted workshops on
successful publishing. In 2016, she presented
at the Kravis Leadership Institute at Clare-
mont McKenna College, on female leader-
ship during the annual Women and Leader-
ship Alliance (WLA) conference, resulting in
the collective work, Women’s Leadership Jour-
neys: Stories, Research and Novel Perspectives
(Routledge, 2019) in which she contributed
the chapter, Courage: Mapping the Leadership
Journey. Dr. Marques further conducts regular
presentations at the Academy of Management,
and at business venues in Los Angeles as well
as for professional audiences in Miami and
Suriname.
Joan’s research interests pertain to Awak-
ened Leadership, Buddhist Psychology in
Management, and Workplace Spirituality.
Her works have been widely published and
cited in both academic and popular venues.
She has written more than 150 scholarly
articles, which were published in prestigious
scholarly journals such as The Journal of
Business Ethics, Business and Society,Inter-
national Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Leadership & Organization Development
Journal,The International Journal of Manage-
ment Education,Journal of Communication
Management,Journal of Management Devel-
opment,Organization Development Journal,
xxii EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS
and Human Resource Development Quarterly.
Dr. Marques has (co)authored and (co)edited
more than 30 books, among which, New
Horizons in Positive Leadership and Change
(Springer, 2020), and Social Entrepreneurship
and Corporate Social Responsibility (Springer,
2020). The Routledge Companion to Inclu-
sive Leadership (2020), Lead with Heart
in Mind (Springer, 2019), The Routledge
Companion to Management and Workplace
Spirituality,Engaged Leadership: Trans-
forming Through Future-Oriented Design (with
Satinder Dhiman—Springer, 2018); Ethical
Leadership, Progress with a Moral Compass
(Routledge, 2017); Leadership, Finding
Balance Between Acceptance and Ambition
(Routledge, 2016); Leadership Today: Prac-
tices for Personal and Professional Performance
(with Satinder Dhiman—Springer, 2016);
Business and Buddhism (Routledge, 2015);
and Leadership and Mindful Behavior: Action,
Wakefulness, and Business (Palgrave Macmillan,
2014).
Joan currently serves as Dean at Wood-
bury University’s School of Business, in
Burbank, CA, where she works on infusing
and nurturing the concept of Business with
a Conscience into internal and external stake-
holders. She is also a Full Professor of
Management and teaches business courses
related to Leadership, Ethics, Creativity,
Social Entrepreneurship, and Organizational
Behavior in graduate and undergraduate
programs.
Dr. Marques is a member of the executive
committee of the Management, Spirituality
and Religion interest group of the Academy
of Management, where she serves as the officer
for Membership and Community Building. As
EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS xxiii
such, she conducted workshops on qualitative
research methods to global cohorts of doctoral
students in 2018 and 2019.
Contributors
Gylfi Dalmann Aðalsteinsson Human Resource Management, Univer-
sity of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Byron G. Adams Department of Industrial Psychology and People
Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa;
Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The
Netherlands;
Department of Work, Organization and Society, Ghent University, Ghent,
Belgium;
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Emerald M. Archer Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, CA,
USA
Gamze Arman Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of
the West of England (UWE Bristol), Bristol, UK
Sonam Chawla Jindal Global Business School, O.P. Jindal Global
University, Sonipat, India
Þóra H. Christiansen School of Business, University of Iceland, Reyk-
javik, Iceland
Mercedes Coffman Woodbury University, Burbank, CA, USA
Douglas J. Cremer Woodbury University, Burbank, CA, USA
Nadia Daniel Department of Industrial Psychology and People Manage-
ment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Wiley C. Davi Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA
xxiv EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS
Debra J. Dean Regent University, Virginia Beach, VI, USA;
Department of Business, Leadership, and Information Systems, Regent
University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA
Eleftheria Egel Navigating Transformation, Female Entrepreneurship
Consultancy, Muellheim, Germany
Enrico Fontana Sasin School of Management, Chulalongkorn Univer-
sity, Bangkok, Thailand;
Mistra Centre for Sustainable Markets (MISUM), Stockholm School of
Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
Elizabeth Hartney Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada
Emu Kato Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts,
Boston, MA, USA
Lizabeth Kay Kleintop Economics and Business Department, Moravian
College, Bethlehem, PA, USA
Ikraam Kraft Department of Industrial Psychology and People Manage-
ment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Wanda Krause Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada
Catherine Lötter Department of Industrial Psychology and People
Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Joan Marques Woodbury University, Burbank, CA, USA
M. Christina Meyers Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg
University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Laureen Mgrdichian Biola University, La Mirada, CA, USA
Thuc-Doan Nguyen School of Business, Woodbury University,
Burbank, CA, USA
Belgin Okay-Somerville Adam Smith Business School, University of
Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Ásta Dís Óladóttir Department of Business Administration, University
of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
M. S. Rao MSR Leadership Consultants, New Delhi, India
Birute Regine Hancock, NH, USA
EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS xxv
Lusanda Sekaja Department of Industrial Psychology and People
Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Ester R. Shapiro Department of Psychology, University of
Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA
Radha R. Sharma New Delhi Institute of Management, New Delhi,
India
Robert Smith Aberdeen, Scotland
Duncan H. Spelman Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA
Amelia F. Underwood School of Business and Leadership, Regent
University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA
Vart ika Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
Lorraine Warren Southhampton, UK
Candy Williams Williams Executive Leadership Development LLC, Los
Angels, CA, USA
Jody A. Worley University of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, USA
List of Figures
Fig. 4.1 Overview of the gender communication differences
discussed 78
Fig. 14.1 A conceptual model of spousal entrepreneurial identity
(Source Smith & Warren, 2018) 267
Fig. 17.1 The ratio of women as board members of registered
companies from 2003 to 2020. (European Institute
for Gender Equality [2020], Authors’ presentation) 323
Fig. 17.2 Number of women and men Chief Executive Officers
in Iceland by firm size (Statistics Iceland n.d.) 324
Fig. 19.1 Significance of barriers to gender parity across industry
(Percentage) Share of respondents reporting barrier.
(Source Future of Jobs Survey. World Economic Forum) 368
Fig. 20.1 Challenges for transwomen and Bandhu’s approach
as part of the CSR project 399
xxvii
PART I
Gender: A Historical Overview
CHAPTER 1
History of Empowerment: How Far Have We
Come?
Debra J. Dean and Laureen Mgrdichian
Introduction
Diaz (2011) wrote “gender roles were forged in colonial spaces in ways
that differed greatly from those that characterized European centers since
the social composition of the American territories varied dramatically from
their European counterparts” (p. 207). In retrospect, one could wonder
how American women evolved from the portrayal of savage indigenous
creatures to the likes of June Cleaver in the 1950s and the women’s
empowerment movement of the twenty-first century.
Hannah Duston (born 1657) received accolades for her revenge
against Native Americans. Her story is not much different than many
indigenous Americans who found their family members kidnapped,
abused, or murdered. The difference in Duston’s story is the public
D. J. Dean (B)
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VI, USA
e-mail: debrdea@regent.edu
L. Mgrdichian
Biola University, La Mirada, CA, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_1
3
4D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
perception and outcome of her choices to avenge the death of her child
and her own kidnapping. Duston, a colonial Massachusetts Puritan, is
now known as an American colonial heroine and American folk hero. She
was honored with three statues and a mountain in northern New Hamp-
shire. Her statue is possibly the first of a female in America. Her story
was published by Puritan Minister, Cotton Mather where “he described
Duston as a righteous ringleader who had every reason to convince the
other captives to act” in killing ten sleeping Indians, including six chil-
dren. “Mather’s version of the death highlighted Indian violence to justify
Duston’s gruesome vengeance” (Cutter, 2018).
The following native American women have also earned their place in
history. Some portrayed as vicious savages and others as peacekeepers.
This small sample of history is an attempt to encourage reflection of
family heritage and to seek a unified future respecting human dignity for
all. Nanye-hi (born 1738) earned the name Ghighau (Beloved Woman)
of the Cherokee. According to Kettler (2020), Nanye-hi declared at a
1781 treaty conference, “Our cry is all for peace, let it continue. This
peace must last forever.” Sacagawea (born 1788), a member of the Lemhi
band of the Shoshone tribe, was kidnapped around age 12. She was brave
and resourceful, as well as a multilingual speaker. She spoke Shoshone
and Hidatsa, which proved invaluable to the expedition of Lewis and
Clark. Sacagawea embarked on a long and challenging journey only
two months after giving birth (Kettler, 2020). Mochi (born 1841), a
Cheyenne survivor of the Sand Creek and Washita Massacres, who turned
to revenge after the brutal murder of her family, was arrested in 1875
as the first Native American female prisoner. Unlike Dunston, Mochi is
known as a savage, fierce, and vengeful warrior. Her accuser stated she
was “a hardhearted, brutal, and cruel savage” (Richards, 2019,p.17).
By the turn of the twentieth century, immigration and assimilation
became more civil than in years past. Lerner (1975) described the typical
American household in the 1920s as having marriage and traditional
family values as a goal. Men worked long hours, and women cared for
children and household tasks. Meleen (2006), explained “despite the
image of the 1920s woman as independent and rebellious… each person
within a household had male or female roles and saw the value in these
tasks as a means to meet all the needs of the family as a whole.”
While considering characteristics of the first women on American soil,
the transformation from survivalist to domesticated leads one to wonder
how it all happened. Hawn (2017) wrote “there has been a significant
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 5
change in how often women are portrayed as having an existence not
predicated on the home or domestic duties over time.” And, just as
seen with Duston and Mochi, one may wonder how many reputations
have stemmed from influenced public perception instead of fact-based
reasoning.
Critical Theory
Critical theory was developed in the 1920s by members of the Frank-
furt Institute for Social Research (also known as the Frankfurt School).
The following pioneers of critical theory drew on the work of Karl Marx
and Sigmund Freud: Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas,
Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Walter Benjamin. In 1933
the Frankfurt School, located in Germany, was closed by the Nazis;
however, Horkheimer reestablished the school in New York. Current day
figures, including Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Melanie Phillips,
consider the theorists an intellectual group of supervillains hell-bent on
undermining western culture (Nicholas, 2020). In his book, The Devil’s
Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the
We st , Walsh explains that critical theory was dedicated to the destruc-
tion of western civilization, specifically faith, family, and language (2017).
Walsh states that Political Correctness and Diversity & Inclusion are tools
in this effort to destroy the West as we know it and calls Saul Alinsky
their famous disciple. The rapid growth of such Cultural Marxism ideas
on American soil points to the university curriculum, including crit-
ical theory rhetoric and their complete control of American education
(Cruiser, 2015). According to Walsh, Critical Theory says, “Let’s tear
everything down” (ibid.).
Popular Culture and Feminism
Arrow explained that popular culture was a way to brainwash women
citing the 1968 “No More Miss America!” campaign and blaming soap
operas for “reinforcing the image of male-dominated women” (2007,
p. 214). In response, “if popular culture could perpetuate women’s
oppression then used in the ‘right’ way, it could empower women as
well” (p. 214). This same argument arose after the 2020 Super Bowl half-
time performance featuring Jennifer Lopez and Shakira. Brown (2020)
6D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
wrote of the raunchy, sexually explicit halftime show on primetime tele-
vision, watched by millions of families together. USA Today reported the
performance as empowering, not objectifying, women, citing age and
the #MeToo movement (Yasharoff, 2020). However, Franklin Graham,
a Christian evangelist stated:
I don’t expect the world to act like the church, but our country has
had a sense of moral decency on primetime television in order to protect
children. We see that disappearing before our eyes. It was demonstrated
tonight in the Pepsi Super Bowl Halftime Show—with millions of chil-
dren watching. This exhibition was Pepsi showing young girls that sexual
exploitation of women is okay. With the exploitation of women on the
rise worldwide, instead of lowering the standard, we as a society should be
raising it. I’m disappointed in Pepsi and the NFL.
Books
McCabe, Fairchild, Grauerholz, Pescosolido, and Tope (2011) reviewed
5618 books spanning 101 years of American children’s literature. They
found an apparent disparity; whereas, “males are represented more
frequently than females in titles and as central characters” (p. 207). Inter-
estingly, the researchers found more female characters in books in the
early and later years of the twentieth century; whereas, mid-century books
featured more males (p. 215). The research by McCabe et al. (2011)is
summed up in saying:
Gender is a social creation; cultural representation, including that in chil-
dren’s literature, is a key source in reproducing and legitimating gender
systems and gender inequality. The messages conveyed through represen-
tation of males and females in books contribute to children’s ideas of what
it means to be a boy, girl, man, or woman. The disparities we find point
to the symbolic annihilation of women and girls, and particularly female
animals, in 20th Century children’s literature, suggesting to children that
these characters are less important than their male counterparts.
According to Arrow, feminist novels “played a crucial role in the
broader public acceptance of feminist ideals” (Arrow, 2007, p. 215). Cote
noted the literary work of Astrid Lindgren and the 1945 introduction of
Pippi Longstocking as “the most uncompromising – and uncompromised
– children’s heroines from the 20th Century.” Cote remembers Pippi as
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 7
an orphan whose mother died and father was lost at sea; therefore, nine-
year-old Pippi “lives alone with a pet monkey and resists with vivacity
adult’s attempts to corral her into conventional childhood activities.” In
1955, Beverly Cleary introduced Ramona Quimby as the American cousin
of Pippi Longstocking. Cote explains the two characters were “bright
beacons for little girls who have been variously told they are too much:
too loud or pesky or hyperactive” (p. 40).
Many books are now available for children’s literature that boldly
proclaim women’s liberation and female empowerment. The list includes
Born to Ride, published in 2019 by Larissa Theule set in the 1890s
warning women if they ride a bicycle, their eyes could bulge, and their
jaw could clench. How Kate Warne Saved President Lincoln, published in
2016 by Elizabeth Van Steenwyk, refers to the investigation of an impor-
tant woman who played a role in American history as she partners with
the Pinkerton detective agency to uncover a plot to assassinate the presi-
dent. Rosie Revere Engineer, published in 2013 by Chris Ferrie, is about
a young girl with various inventions and a history of mockery for her
imagination until her aunt arrives to encourage her.
Music
Music is a powerful mechanism for influencing society. The Library of
Congress notes music has served a paramount role in the women’s
suffrage movement. Their collection of sheet music spanned 1838–1923
and includes “rally songs and songsters written and compiled by notable
composers and suffragists” (Hayden, 2020). Since the 1920s, hundreds, if
not thousands, of songs were written and incorporated into the American
culture to empower women to do more.
O’Connor (2017) wrote, “the logical assumption…would be to
assume that the women of country music follow a similar conserva-
tive political path. However, when compared to the Women’s Liberation
Movement, a largely leftist political movement, we can see that ultimately
this is not true” (p. ii). To expand, O’Connor notes that Kitty Wells music
is an “often-contradictory understanding of the role of the housewife,
as she appears prominently as a pioneer within the genre and her fami-
ly’s primary breadwinner” (p. ii). Tammy Wynette’s music, according to
O’Connor, focuses on consciousness-raising. And Loretta Lynn’s lyrics
“subvert what is expected of her as a Southern woman” (p. ii).
8D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
Helen Reddy’s 1972 song, IamWoman, became the feminist anthem
for the 1970s women’s movement, and the one song Reddy is best
known for (Arrow, 2007). Her lyrics, “I am strong, I am invincible, I am
woman” contributed to her receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award
for her work with the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Reddy’s song
reached women that were not part of the formalized Women’s Liberation
Movement. The song “was a potent, widely accessible feminist text that
reached many women who might otherwise have had little awareness of
the possibilities women’s liberation might offer” (Arrow, 2007, p. 214).
Table 1.1 records titles of feminist anthems through the decades.
With music censorship, it is astounding that such songs were allowed
in the period they were released. However, this music pushed bound-
aries and contributed to changing American culture. Finan (2020)wrote
that congress created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
1934 to monitor “radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.” As exam-
ples, Finan documents a 1948 raid in Memphis where police confiscate
and destroy records deemed obscene. In 1954, the Boston Catholic Youth
Organization (CYO) demanded radio stations stop playing music with
obscene or sexually explicit lyrics fearing the music would stir hormones.
In 1955, Elvis was threatened with arrest if he continued gyrating his
pelvis while performing; he was later filmed from the waist up on the 1957
Ed Sullivan Show. And, in 1955, Nat King Cole was assaulted on stage by
members of the White Citizen’s Council of Birmingham, Alabama. They
argued such music played by black musicians was a “plot to mongrelize
America by bringing out an animalism in people through the use of heavy
beats in their music.”
The Roaring 20s
The 1920s is a period in American history known as the Roaring 20s
due to the prosperity of the American workforce. This decade, “was
the beginning of the modern era as we know it” (Amadeo, 2020).
Many households obtained uncommon, even unheard-of items that most
consider necessities in the twenty-first century. Such goods included auto-
mobiles, blenders, microwaves, ovens, radios, refrigerators, vacuums, and
washing machines.
Along with economic success of the country, came the “first generation
of independent American women” (Buccieri, 2018). Prohibition opened
the door to speakeasies, which supplied the demand for music, dance,
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 9
Tabl e 1.1 Feminist anthems through the decades
Year released Title Singer
1908 Take Me Out to the Ballgame Jack Norworth and Albert
Von T i zer
1910 March of the Women Ethel Smuth and Cicely
Hamilton
1923 Same Jones Blues Bessie Smith
1924 Cell Bound Blues Gertrude “Ma” Rainey
1924 There’ll Be Some Changes Made Marion Harris
1929 I’m the Last of the Red-Hot Mamas Sophie Tucker
1929 I want to Be Bad Helen Kane
1935 You Let Me Down Billie Holiday
1952 It Wasn’t God Who Made Honky
Tonk Angels
Kitty Wells
1963 You Don’t Own Me Lesley Gore
1965 Paths of Victory Odetta
1966 Four Women Nina Simone
1967 Respect Aretha Franklin
1967 Different Drum Stone Poneys with Linda
Ronstadt
1967 Do Right Woman, Do Right Man Aretha Franklin
1968 Just Because I am a Woman Dolly Parton
1968 Harper Valley PTA Jeannie C. Riley
1972 Sisters, O Sisters Yoko Ono
1972 I am Woman Helen Reddy
1973 Don’t Put Her Down Hazel Dickens
1975 The Pill Loretta Lynn
1976 Cherry Bomb The Runaways
1978 I will Survive Gloria Gaynor
1978 I’m Every Woman Chaka Khan
1979 No More Tears Donna Summer and Barbara
Streisand
1980 9 to 5 Dolly Parton
1980 Bad Reputation Joan Jett & the Blackhearts
1980 I’m Coming Out Diana Ross
1986 Nasty Janet Jackson
1992 Bikini Kill Rebel Girl
1993 U.N.I.T.Y. Queen Latifah
1993 Girls, Girls, Girls Liz Phair
1993 Keep Ya Head Up 2Pac
(continued)
10 D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
Tabl e 1.1 (continued)
Year released Title Singer
1995 Just a Girl No Doubt
1996 Guys Do It All the Time Mindy McCready
1997 Man! I Feel Like a Woman Shania Twain
1999 No Scrubs TLC
2001 Independent Women Destiny’s Child
2001 I’m A Survivor Reba McEntire
2002 Survivor Destiny’s Child
2002 I am Beautiful Christina Aguilera
2003 This Ones for the Girls Martina McBride
2005 Phenomenal Woman Olivia Newton John
2005 Somebody’s Hero Jamie O’Neal
2007 Just Fine Mary J. Blige
2007 Mother of Pearl Nellie McKay
2007 Gunpowder and Lead Miranda Lambert
2007 All-American Girl Carrie Underwood
2009 She Wolf Shakira
2011 Born this Way Lady Gaga
2011 Run the World (Girls) Beyonce
2012 Bad Girls MIA
2012 Girl on Fire Alicia Keys
2013 Q.U.E.E.N Janelle Monae and Erykah
Badu
2014 Flawless Beyonce
2015 Wonder Woman Lion Babe
2016 Don’t Touch my Hair Solange
2016 Tomboy Princess Nokia
2017 Bodak Yellow Cardi B
2017 Doves in the Wind SZA
2017 No Man is Big Enough for my Arms Ibeyi
2017 Quiet Milck
2017 Woman Kesha
2018 Girls Need Love Summer Walker
2018 God is a Woman Ariana Grande
2018 Nameless, Faceless Courtney Barnett
2018 Pynk Janelle Monae
2019 Juice Lizzo
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 11
and alcohol. Attending those infamous, hidden party rooms were young
women dressed in rakish attire. Buccieri wrote, the women “donned
fashionable flapper dresses of shorter, calf-revealing lengths and lower
necklines. Instead of corsets, flappers wore high heels, bras, and lingerie
along with their straight and slim dress. The ladies cut their hair in
short bob-style fashion and doused their faces with lipstick, mascara, and
rouge.”
Conservative 1950s
The 1950s was a time of cultured, sophisticated, and economically advan-
taged homes. Families ate dinner together and had a sense of moral
family values. June Cleaver, the quintessential housewife on the Leave
it to Beaver television show (1657–1963), was the “archetypal 1950s
woman the second wave of the Women’s Movement was tr ying to liber-
ate” (Whiting, 2013). In one episode, Beaver says “Girls have got it
lucky…They don’t have to be smart. They don’t have to get jobs or
anything. Alls they gotta do is get married.” He continues to say, “women
who do not get married could do a bunch of “dumb stuff” like “become
dressmakers or cut people’s nails in the barber shop or take care of kids.”
To this, June tells her son, “Well, Beaver, today girls can be doctors and
lawyers too, you know. They’re just as ambitious as boys are.” Hawn
(2017) analyzed 1250 American television commercials spanning 1970–
2016 with a specially designed test, The June Cleaver Test, to establish
if June Cleaver, the perfectly dressed domesticated woman, and happy
homemaker was a relevant label for today’s modern women. Hawn found
women were usually portrayed in domestic roles and were more likely
to appear as sex objects instead of seen in occupational roles. Hawn
noted, “June cleaver has not so much left the kitchen; instead, she has
just updated her wardrobe” (p. ii).
Social Revolution of the 1960s
The 1960s started as a time of hope for a better future. This period is
known for movements that broke barriers of preexisting social norms
through media, protests, and legalities coining phrases such as flower
power and make love not war. Buccieri (2010) wrote of the high expec-
tation and confidence with President Kennedy at the helm stating the
country believed they were at the dawn of the Golden Age; however,
12 D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
“on the contrary, by the end of the 1960s, it seemed that the nation was
falling apart.”
The Vietnam war spanned 1955–1975, and the United States Selec-
tive Service lotteries were held between 1969 and 1972, drafting 2.2
million American men. Approximately 7,500 women served in Vietnam.
According to Veterans Affairs, 80% of the women were nurses (Aponte
et al., 2015). Women were not allowed to serve in combat until 2013
(Carlisle, 2017).
Throughout the 1960s, the anti-Vietnam war movement, Civil Rights
movement, student movement, and women’s movement all continued to
spread. In 1968, women protested outside of the Miss America Pageant,
throwing items that symbolized oppression into a Freedom Trash Can
sparking a feminist revolution (Gay, 2018). Hippies and Flower Chil-
dren flocked to the 1969 Woodstock Music and Art Fair. It seemed as
if most people had a cause to stand up and fight for. According to Dunn-
Froebig (2006), women’s liberation paralleled with the countercultural
movement. In her study, she found that this period encouraged “coun-
terculture parents with gender egalitarian values [to talk] to their children
about fairness, occupations, and marriage” (p. 24).
Carlisle (2017) documented things that were off-limits to women
in the 1960s. In sports, the first woman to run the Boston marathon
as Kathrine Switzer in 1967. In 1972, six women were permitted to
run in the New York City Marathon with the condition that they start
10 minutes before the men. In dissent, they sat down when the starting
pistol sounded. While many American universities did not have sports for
women, Lewis (2019) notes the first women’s basketball team in America
was at Smith College in 1892.
In school, women could not ask for legal help until Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972. Women also could not go to military
academies until President Ford opened training facilities in 1975. West
Point Academy welcomed its first female class in 1976 (Schloesser, 2010).
Ivy League schools were male-only until Yale accepted women in 1969.
Because of the lack of educational opportunities, women were limited in
their career options, and becoming astronauts was one role they were not
eligible to fulfill until 1983 when Sally Ride became the first American
womantoexplorespace.
Women could not sit on a jury until the 1975 case of Taylor vs.
Louisiana. The first woman to serve on the Supreme Court was Sandra
Day O’Conner in 1981. In the workplace, women were viewed as the
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 13
weaker sex; they were unable to have work that needed physical exertion
equal to that of a man (Carlisle, 2017). Carlisle noted that “until the
1964 Civil Rights Act, there was no legal protection for women in the
workforce who were treated differently due to their gender.” As such,
if a working woman in the 1960s became pregnant, she was expected
to become a full-time mother. This unwritten rule was not overridden
until the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. A 1969 class-action lawsuit
with Colgate-Palmolive and female union employees stated the women
were “intentionally discriminated against by a system of job classification
which deprived them of various opportunities in the plant and that they
were subjected to discriminatory layoffs under a segregated plant seniority
system based on the employee’s sex” (Stanley, n.d.).
In most states, women could not cohabit with their boyfriend as
there was a ban on unwed couples living together. Florida, Michigan,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia still have anti-
cohabitation laws (Wright, 2018). Women in the 1960s could not get
a credit card of their own as most women were not financially inde-
pendent from men. This unwritten rule changed with the 1974 Equal
Credit Opportunity Act. Women could not breastfeed in public in the
1960s without fear of persecution. McCall (2016) explained that nursing,
in general, was not an issue during the colonial era; however, once the
“modern feeding bottle and nipple were invented,” the act of breast-
feeding declined steadily until the 1970s. A wife could also not refuse
sexual relations with their husband until 1983 when most states amended
their laws to account for marital rape. Legally, women could not file
for divorce until 1969 when Ronald Reagan, as Governor of California,
introduced the no-fault divorce bill, which was later adopted by other
states.
PEST Milestones
Much change has taken place in American society on the topic of gender
equality in the past 100 years. Movements have come, and some have
gone, but their residue has unmistakably left an impression on the current
culture. If women’s rights were an industry, and some may argue that
elements of it are, analytical tools would assist in understanding the
marketplace and the resulting environment better. Such a mechanism
could measure the impact of political, economic, social/cultural, and
technological (PEST) contexts on business. These four environments are
14 D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
always changing, and over the past century have had a profound effect on
the role of women in the workplace.
Political
Labor. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, leagues and laws have
aimed at giving women equal footing in the workplace. The Women’s
Trade Union League (established in 1903) was founded to support
women in the workplace, specifically with fair wages and to enhance
working conditions. By the end of World War I (WWI) (1914–1918),
women made up 20% of the manufacturing workforce (Todd-Smith,
2020). These women took on roles traditionally held by men.
Voting rights. Women gained the right to vote across the nation in
1920, with the ratification of the 19th Amendment. This same year,
the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor formed and women’s
causes banded together to follow their vested interests. Their approach
to women’s equality was not in unison; on the contrary, they became
competing efforts (Blum, 1991, pp. 35–36).
Abortion rights . In the United States, it was the 1973 Roe vs. Wade
Supreme Court case that gave women the legal right to an abortion
and the opportunity to continue pursuing careers without any unplanned
interference. The American population has never united on the abortion
debate. Some view it as murder, while others view it as freedom of choice.
According to Jones and Jerman (2017), abortion rates have declined since
2008, where 30% of women 45 years of age had chosen abortion at some
point in their life. By 2017, this rate fell to 23.7%. It is estimated that in
2019, 42.4 million babies were aborted worldwide (Showalter, 2020).
First-wave feminism. The “first wave” of feminism spanned from
1848–1920 where women gained the right to own property, regardless
if they were single or married. Women also had the right to keep their
wages, sign contracts on their own, and take someone to court (Dicker,
2008, p. 6). The right to vote in 1920 was the capstone of this period.
Second-wave feminism. This “second wave” of feminism began with the
release of Betty Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique, in 1963. More
than three million copies of the book sold in just three years. During this
period the Equal Pay Act of 1963 addressed the gender pay gap, women
(both married and unmarried) gained the right to reproductive choices
of birth control and abortion, and Title IX improved the educational
opportunities for women across the country.
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 15
Economic
War. Women reached new heights and gained significant ground in
“wages, unionization, and job opportunities during the war years”
(Chafe, p. 175). However, with the end of the war and the return of
men, there was a shift as the role of women in the workplace was ques-
tioned, although they had proven their abilities to do the work at hand.
Even Senator Harry Truman chimed in, stating that “they are entitled to
the chance to earn a good living at jobs they have shown they can do”
(Chafe, p. 176). Once men returned, much of the work reverted back to
men so they could “provide” for their families. If a woman was working
in a traditional men’s role, it was thought she was taking the livelihood
of another family. Many women were relegated to traditional roles in the
personal service realm. Such positions included domestic service, apparel
manufacturing, and telephone/telegraph communication services (Joiner
&Weiner,1942, pp. 5–6).
Recession. Throughout 1960–1999, the labor participation rate of
women grew to 60 percent. Since the height of 1999, the participa-
tion rate of women in the workplace has declined. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, this decline is not offset with more men in
the labor force. It can, consequently, be identified as a significant contrib-
utor to an overall reduction in the labor force participation rate (Toosi &
Morisi, 2017,p.2).
Social/Cultural
Unmarried women in the early 1900s worked mainly in clerical roles or
as teachers. Once married, women assumed the roles of full-time wives
and mothers (Barnett, 2004;Schreiner,2017).
Sexual revolution. Birth control pills in the 1960s offered women the
freedom to have sex without consequences. A shift in society’s moral code
was evolving. The pill reduced the fear of pregnancy, during a cultural
time of “make love, not war” from the Vietnam War era, and this took
a possible barrier, or excuse away to say “no” (Kotz, 2010). The 1960s
launched a shift in societal views of right and wrong, morals became rela-
tive instead of absolute, and the acceptance of behavior that felt good and
was not harming anyone (Drake, 1964).
Female role expectations. Debate prevails around the role and worth of
women. The feminist argument is that women have equal rights on all
16 D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
levels in the workplace, home, and in all opportunities. The charge to
ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was born out of this philo-
sophical soil. Schlafly (2007) proposes the amendment could accomplish
the following:
… require women to be drafted into military combat any time men were
conscripted, abolish the presumption that the husband should support his
wife, and take away Social Security benefits for wives and widows. It would
also give federal courts and the federal government enormous new powers
to reinterpret every law that makes a distinction based on gender, such as
those related to marriage, divorce, and alimony.
Women of the baby-boom era have participated in a significant shift
weaving together lives that include marriage, work, and parenting. It
is reported that “In 1967 one-half of all women in their thirties were
married mothers and full-time homemakers; by 1982 only one-fourth of
women in their thirties held this traditional role” (McLaughlin et al.,
1988, p. 198). This shift created a greater need for childcare and
preschool options.
Women also marry and have children later. In 1960, the median age of
women marrying for the first time was 20.3. This number rose to 26.6 by
2013 (Clark, 2020). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average
age of marriage in 2018 was 29.8 for men and 27.8 for women (Jordan,
2018). And, the birth rate in American is now at the lowest point in over
a century, according to Frey (2019).
Technological
Home appliances. Before the twentieth century, the bulk of a woman’s day
was spent doing work that modern women never consider because of
technological advancements. Appliances dramatically changed lives of
women globally. Automobiles, blenders, microwaves, ovens, radios, refrig-
erators, vacuums, washing machines, etc., have a liberating effect on
women who traditionally spent the bulk of their day doing household
chores. Research of Coen-Pirani, Leon, and Lugauer (2010) concludes
the significant increase of women (married women, specifically) in the
workplace is not tied directly to technology; however, such advances have
influenced the economy and society in positive ways (p. 512). Women
simply had more time available to pursue other interests.
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 17
Birth control. Advertising for birth control in the United States was
prohibited in 1873 with the Comstock Act. The United States Postal
Service was empowered to confiscate any such device distributed through
the mail. In 1916, Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic
in the United States. Sanger was arrested at least eight times, charged
with being a public nuisance (Larson, 1993). In 1929, Sanger’s Birth
Control Research Bureau was raided, and she was arrested for “giving
out demoralizing information and advice” (Larson, 1993). By 1938, the
Comstock Act was abolished, and diaphragms, also known as womb veils,
became the favored method of birth control. In 1950, Sanger raised
$150,000 to conduct research developing the first birth control pill.
In 1960, the first pill was approved by the Food and Drug Admin-
istration (FDA). Thompson (2013) noted that in 1965, the Supreme
Court granted permission to married couples to choose if they wanted
to use birth control; however, unmarried women were not allowed the
same choice since the traditional family value system encouraged virginity
until marriage. In 1972, the Supreme Court announced that all citi-
zens, regardless of marital status, were allowed to use birth control. From
1968—today, the controversy around birth control has focused on safety.
Over the years, birth control devices such as the Dalkon Shield, Ortho
Evra Patch, NuvaRing, and Yasmin/Yaz, have seen their fair share of
lawsuits.
Computer. The rise of computers in the workplace grew dramatically in
the early 1990s. By 1993 nearly fifty percent of employees were working
on computers (Weinberg, 2000, p. 290). Weinberg proposes the increase
in the use of computers had a restructuring effect. It diminished the
emphasis on physical ability, which opened the door to higher demand
for female workers (p. 305).
Demographic Landscape of the Workplace
Shifts in the Demographic Landscape of the Workplace
Much has changed in the workplace over the last century. Women in the
1950s were usually homemakers (once they married), and if they were
in the workplace, they had lower-paying jobs traditionally categorized as
“helper” positions (secretaries, teachers, service industries, etc.). By 2008,
women were contributors to approximately 45% of their total family
income (Hartmann, 2008, p. 2). According to the Center for American
18 D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
Progress “64.2% of mothers were primary, sole, or co-breadwinners for
their families” in 2017 (Seeberger, 2019).
Between 1940 and 1999, there was an increase in the number of
women in the workforce (Toossi, 2002, p. 15). In looking at the total
pool of men and women workers in 1950, women made up 34 percent
of the workplace. This number grew to 46.5 percent by 2000 and is
projected to increase to 47.2 by 2024 (Toosi & Morisi, 2017). Although
women make up nearly half of the workforce, barriers still exist between
women and executive positions (Schwanke, 2013). The number of female
CEOs running America’s largest companies has hit an all-time high with
37 women at the helm in the Fortune 500 (Henchliffe, 2020).
Shifts in Gender Positions of Power
Progress in women rising to positions of power has not kept up with the
growing number of women in the workplace despite the fact that women
have outearned men in bachelor’s degrees since 1982, master’s degrees
since 1987, and doctorate degrees since 2006 (Perry, 2013). Although
more women have achieved mid-management positions of power they are
still underrepresented in executive positions. Schwanke (2013) advocates
there is confusion due to media and cultural references showing far more
women in executive positions than what is taking place (p. 1). Jordan
(2019) proposes that the #MeToo movement could continue this stall in
women achieving higher positions of power as mentoring is often a neces-
sary component to progressing into executive positions. This movement
is one that could cause reluctance for men to mentor capable women
because of fear that a situation may come up within the mentorship where
they are falsely accused of sexual harassment (p. 1).
Diekman and Eagly (2000) explain that social role theory recognizes
stereotypes as a barometer of expectations and claim gender stereo-
types are dynamic, and culture embeds new expectations for gender roles
(p. 1172). The authors identified “the belief that women’s personality,
cognitive, and physical attributes will continue to become more like those
of men should increase women’s access to male-dominated roles and to
socialization and training opportunities that will allow them to assume
these roles” (p. 1186).
Eagly and Karau (2002) expanded on social role theory introducing
role congruity theory of prejudice and evaluated how discrimination
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 19
stands in the way of women acquiring exclusive executive positions
(p. 573) noting the following:
•“Women were less effective than men to the extent that leadership
positions were male-dominated.
•Female leaders became less effective relative to male leaders as the
proportion of male subordinates increased.
•The greater the proportion of men among the raters, the less was
the effectiveness of women relative to men.
•Women were substantially less effective than men in military organi-
zations (a traditionally masculine environment) but modestly more
effective than men in organizations in the domains of education,
government, and social service.
•Women fared particularly well in effectiveness, relative to men, in
middle-level leadership positions, as opposed to line or supervisory
positions” (p. 586).
As shown throughout this chapter, powerful forces are at play with
regard to the role of women in the home, at work, and in society.
Reflection of how American women emerged from savage warrior, to
quintessential housewife, to modern-day leader demonstrates that women
are able to change. Now, the focus should be on the role(s) women desire
in the future as a strategic plan is put in place to fulfill the mission. For
some, it may be a return to the domesticated housewife. And, for others,
it may include a seat at the head of a Fortune 500 table.
Chapter Takeaways
Critical theory demonstrates intentionality to change the future. In this
case, the purpose for change was to first domesticate the savage survivalist
into the modern housewife and then transform the quintessential woman
into a sexual artifact. This chapter reviewed the political, economic,
social/cultural, and technological (PEST) roots of the women’s libera-
tion movements. Additionally, this text examined the impact of media
from a critical theory point of view with respect to the advancement of
equality for women. While it is clear the movement has progressed, it is
unclear if all agree on the desired outcome of feminist expectations for
20 D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
the future. To move forward with more intention in a purposeful move-
ment it is recommended that we take a step back and reflect on the roles
of men and women in the past to carefully craft the vision for the future.
References
Amadeo, K. (2020). The economy in the 1920s and what caused the great
depression. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/roaring-twenties-
4060511/.
Aponte, M., Balfour, F., Garin, T., Glasgow, D., Lee, T., Thomas, E., &
Williams, K. (2015). The past, present, and future of women veterans.
Retrieved from https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Women_
Veterans_2015_Final.pdf/.
Arrow, M. (2007). It has become my personal anthem: ‘I am woman’, popular
culture and 1970s feminism. Australian Feminist Studies, 22(53), 213–230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08164640701361774.
Barnett, R. C. (2004). Preface: Women and work: Where are we, where did we
come from, and where are we going? Journal of Social Issues, 60 (4), 667–
674. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.biola.edu/10.1111/j.0022-
4537.2004.00378.x/.
Blum, L. M. (1991). Between feminism and labor: The significance of the compa-
rable worth movement. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from
http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft3b69n89t/.
Brown, M. (2020). Why are we so shocked by the latest sexually charged halftime
show? Retrieved from https://www.christianpost.com/voices/why-are-we-so-
shocked-by-the-latest-sexually-charged-halftime-show.html/.
Buccieri, P. (2010). The 1960s history. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/
topics/1960s/1960s-history/.
Buccieri, P. (2018). Flappers. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/
roaring-twenties/flappers/.
Carlisle, S. (2017). 20 astonishing things that were off-limits to women in 1960.
Retrieved from https://newravel.com/uncategorized/astonishing-things-off-
limits-women-1960/3/.
Chafe, W. H. (1972). The American woman: Her changing social, economic, and
political roles, 1920—1970. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clark. (2020). Status of women in the states. statusofwomendata.org.
Retrieved from https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/reproduct
ive-rights/#section-4.
Coen-Pirani, D., Leon, A., & Lugauer, S. (2010). The effect of household appli-
ances on female labor force participation: Evidence from microdata. Labour
Economics, 17 (3), 503–513. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lab
eco.2009.04.008.
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 21
Cote, R. V. (2020). How Ramona Quimby taught a generation of girls to embrace
brashness. Retrieved from https://lithub.com/how-ramona-quimby-taught-a-
generation-of-girls-to-embrace-brashness/.
Cruiser, S. (2015). The Frankfurt School, critical theory and how America fell
victim to Europe’s progressive ideas. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=A0KwdtCmvWg/.
Cutter, B. (2018). The gruesome story of Hannah Duston, whose slaying of
Indians made her an American folk “hero”. Retrieved from https://www.
smithsonianmag.com/history/gruesome-stor y-hannah-duston-american-col
onist-whose-slaying-indians-made-her-folk-hero-180968721/.
Diaz, M. (2011). Native American women and religion in the american colonies:
Textual and visual traces of an imagined community. Legacy: A Journal of
American Women Writers, 28 (2), 205–231. https://doi.org/10.5250/legacy.
28.2.0205.
Dicker, R. C. (2008). A history of U.S. feminisms. Retrieved from https://ebo
okcentral.proquest.com/lib/biola-ebooks/reader.action?docID=679800&
ppg=12/.
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs:
Women and men of the past, present, and future. Society for Personality and
Social Psychology, 26(10), 1171–1188.
Drake, E. (1964). The second sexual revolution. Time Magazine, 83(4).
Dunn-Froebig, E. (2006). All grown up: How the counterculture affected its
flower children (Order No. EP40868). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global (1550007181). Retrieved from http://eres.regent.edu:
2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.regent.edu/docview/
1550007181?accountid=13479/.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward
female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
Finan, C. (2020). Music censorship in America. Retrieved from https://ncac.
org/resource/music-censorship-in-america-an-interactive-timeline/.
Frey, W. (2019). With birth rates down, U.S. had slowest growth rate in a century.
Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/30/with-births-
down-us-had-slowest-growth-rate-in-a-century-091184.
Gay, R. (2018). Fifty years ago, protesters took on the Miss America Pageant
and electrified the feminist movement. Retrieved from https://www.smithsoni
anmag.com/history/fifty-years-ago-protestors-took-on-miss-america-pageant-
electrified-feminist-movement-180967504/.
Graham, F. (2020). Franklin Graham: February 2 Facebook post. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/FranklinGraham/posts/3027376090651885/.
Hartmann, H. (2008). The impact of the current economic downturn on
women: Testimony to Joint Economic Committee. Institute for Women’s
Policy Research. Retrieved from https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/
files/2dbf7c2a-41d0-4502-a272-8208df674f79/hartmann-testimonyimpact
ofecondownturnonwomen6608withcharts.pdf/.
22 D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
Hawn, A. (2017). Escaping June Cleaver: The domestication of women through
advertising.
Hayden, C. (2020). Music in the women’s suffrage movement: Articles and
essays: Women’s suffrage in sheet music: Digital Collections: Library of
Congress. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/collections/womens-suffrage-
sheet-music/articles-and-essays/music-in-the-womens-suffrage-movement/.
Henchliffe, E. (2020). The number of female CEOs in the Fortune 500 hits an
all-time record. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2020/05/18/women-
ceos-fortune-500-2020/.
Joiner, M. A. & Weiner, C. M. (1942). Employment of women in war produc-
tion. Social Security Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/policy/
docs/ssb/v5n7/v5n7p4.pdf/.
Jones, R. K., & Jerman, J. (2017). Population group abortion rates and lifetime
incidence of abortion: United States, 2008–2014. American Journal of Public
Health, 107 (12), 1904–1909.
Jordan, J. (2018). U.S. Census Bureau releases 2018 families and living arrange-
ments tables. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-rel
eases/2018/families.html.
Jordan, S. (2019). #MeToo movement brings to light gender disparity in
positions of power. UWIRE Text (p. 1). Retrieved from https://link-gale-
com.ezproxy.biola.edu/apps/doc/A577566254/AONE?u=biola_main&sid=
AONE&xid=eaa74a65/.
Kettler, S. (2020). 5 Powerful and influential native American women. Retrieved
from https://www.biography.com/news/famous-native-american-women-nat
ive-american-heritage-month/.
Kotz, D. (2010). Birth control pill turns 50: 7 ways it changed lives. U.S. News
& World Report. Retrieved from https://health.usnews.com/health-news/
womens-health/articles/2010/05/07/birth-control-pill-turns-50-7-ways-it-
changed-lives/.
Larson, J. E. (1993). “women understand so little, they call my good nature
‘deceit’”: A feminist rethinking of seduction. Columbia Law Review, 93(2),
374–472. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123051.
Lerner, W. (1975). Historical statistics of the United States: Colonial times
to 1970. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-col
onial-1970.pdf/.
Lewis, J. J. (2019). A timeline of women’s basketball history 1891 to present.
Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-womens-basketball-
in-america-3528489/.
McCabe, J., Fairchild, E., Grauerholz, L., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tope, D. (2011).
Gender in twentieth-century children’s books: Patterns of disparity in titles
and central characters. Gender and Society, 25(2), 197–226.
1 HISTORY OF EMPOWERMENT … 23
McCall, S. (2016). Nursing in public: What US mothers faced from colonial
times until today. Retrieved from https://breastfeedingusa.org/content/art
icle/nursing-public-what-us-mothers-faced-colonial-times-until/.
McLaughlin, S. D., Melber, B. D., Billy, J. O. G., Zimmerle, D. M., Winges, L.
D., & Johnson, T. R. (1988). The changing lives of American women. Chapel
Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Meleen, M. (2006). Family life in the 1920s. Retrieved from https://family.lov
etoknow.com/about-family-values/family-life-1920s/.
Nicholas, T. (2020). Horkheimer, Adorno and critical theory explained. Retrieved
from Horkheimer, Adorno and Critical Theory Explained.
O’Connor, F. (2017). You ain’t woman enough: Country music and the women’s
liberation movement. Retrieved from https://ses.librar y.usyd.edu.au/bitstr
eam/handle/2123/17815/FlynnO%27Connor-YouAin%27tWomanEnough-
AmericanStudiesHonoursThesis.pdf?sequence3&isAllowed=y/.
Perry, M. (2013). Stunning college degree gap: Women have earned almost 10
million more college degrees than men since 1982. Retrieved December 23,
2020, from https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/stunning-college-degree-gap-
women-have-earned-almost-10-million-more-college-degrees-than-men-since-
1982/.
Richards, O. G. (2019). Native American women in non-traditional roles (Order
No. 13862014). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(2242582947). Retrieved from http://eres.regent.edu:2048/login?url=://
search-proquest-com.ezproxy.regent.edu/docview/2242582947?accountid=
13479/.
Schlafly, P. (2007). Equal rights for women: Wrong then, wrong now. Los Angeles
Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/la-op-schafly8apr08-story.
html.
Schloesser, K. (2010). The first women of West Point . Retrieved from https://
www.army.mil/article/47238/the_first_women_of_west_point/.
Schreiner, E. (2017). The jobs of women during the 1900s. Career
Trend. Retrieved from https://careertrend.com/the-jobs-of-women-during-
the-1900s-13654664.html.
Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal
and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict
women’s advancement to authority. Ear th Common Journal, 3(2). Retrieved
from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=864/.
Seeberger, C. (2019). Nearly two-thirds of mothers continue to be family bread-
winners, black mothers are far more likely to be breadwinners. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2019/05/10/469660/
release-nearly-two-thirds-mothers-continue-family-breadwinners-black-mot
hers-far-likely-breadwinners/.
24 D. J. DEAN AND L. MGRDICHIAN
Showalter, B. (2020). 42.4M babies killed by abortion in 2019; here’s what’s ahead
for US abortion laws in 2020. Retrieved from https://www.christianpost.
com/news/424-million-babies-killed-by-abortion-2019-heres-whats-ahead-
for-us-abortion-laws-in-2020.html.
Stanley, T. (n.d.). Thelma Bowe et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Colgate-Palmolive
Company et al., Defendants-appellants. Thelma Bowe et al., Plaintiffs-
appellants, v. Colgate-Palmolive Company et al., Defendants-appellees.
Thelma Bowe et al., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Colgate-Palmolive Company et al.,
Defendant-appellee, And international Chemical Workers Union, Local No.
15, Defendant-appellant. Georgianna Sellers et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v.
Colgate Palmolive Company et al., Defendants-appellees, 416 F.2d 711 (7th
Cir. 1969). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-
courts/F2/416/711/401373/.
Thompson, K. M. J. (2013). A brief history of birth control in the U.S.
Retrieved from https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book-excerpts/health-
article/a-brief-history-of-birth-control/.
Todd-Smith, L. (2020). An Overview 1920–2020. Retrieved December 24,
2020, from https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/about/history.
Toosi, M., & Morisi, T. L. (2017). BLS spotlight on statistics: Women in
the Workforce before, during, and after the great recession. U.S. Bureau of
Labor and Statistics. https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=2952&context=key_workplace/.
Toossi, M. (2002, May). A century of change: The U.S. labor force, 1950–2050.
Monthly Labor Review, pp. 15–28.
Walsh, M. (2017). The devils pleasure palace: The cult of critical theory and the
subversion of the West. New York: Encounter Books.
Weinberg, B. A. (2000). Computer use and the demand for female workers.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53(2), 290–308. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390005300206/.
Whiting, S. (2013). In defense of June Cleaver. Retrieved from https://www.
womenshistory.org/articles/defense-june-cleaver/.
Wright, S. (2018). How does the law permit marital status discrimination in
housing? Retrieved from https://www.unmarried.org/housing/.
Yasharoff, H. (2020). JLo and Shakira’s Super Bowl halftime performance was
empowering, not objectifying. Here’s why. Retrieved from https://www.usa
today.com/stor y/entertainment/celebrities/2020/02/03/super-bowl-hal
ftime-why-jennifer-lopez-shakiras-performance-empowering/4643848002/.
CHAPTER 2
Patriarchy, Religion, and Society
Douglas J. Cremer
Introduction
Patriarchy is an ancient social form, arising in several areas of the world
between 2500 and 5000 years ago. As defined by Gerda Lerner in The
Creation of Patriarchy, it is “the appropriation by men of women’s sexual
and reproductive capacity,” as well as their productive labor, occurring
“prior to the formation of private property and class society” and the
founding of the political state, which had an “essential interest in the
maintenance of the patriarchal family” (Lerner, 1986, pp. 8–10). It is
the prior social claim on some people, by virtue of being identified
and classed as women, usually based on external physical differences, to
provide support, material, emotional, physical, or sexual, to those identi-
fied and classed as men, again based on external physical differences. Past
and current tribal organizations and clan lineages, whether in domestic
agricultural domains or in nomadic pastoral regions, are almost univer-
sally marked by patriarchal and patrilineal social and gender structures,
the few matriarchal or matrilineal exceptions standing out for their infre-
quency. Whether one looks east or west, north or south, one finds the
D. J. Cremer (B)
Woodbury University, Burbank, CA, USA
e-mail: Douglas.Cremer@woodbury.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_2
25
26 D. J. CREMER
“rule of fathers” as masters of the household established before what
anyone would recognize as organized, urban civilization, and definitively
established by the time such civilizations arise. The primacy of fathers,
of mature men (for age is one component of patriarchy) with control of
wealth, whether in land or livestock, came to dominate women, as well
as subordinate men, establishing hierarchical familial and political power
over them, primarily harnessing and controlling women’s (and often other
men’s) domestic production and sexual reproduction by means of social
norms, law codes, and religious authority. Economic dependency, class
privileges, and brute force were employed to enforce this patriarchal
order for millennia. A dominant male as master of the household and
father-figure, either literally or figuratively, is the focal point of the most
widespread and durable form of social, political, economic, and religious
organization on the planet.
One of the key characteristics of patriarchy, according to Lerner, is that
these mature men establish their social and class position through control
of economic and political resources. The more power they accumulate,
the more patriarchal men are able to dominate subordinate men and
virtually all women. These same women then owe their social and class
position to their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons. Women’s access
to power and security is thus mediated by their connections to the men
in their lives. Those that are attached to the appropriate men are deemed
respectable; those who are not so attached are therefore not respectable
(Lerner, 1986, p. 10). In effect, as Simone de Beauvoir argued in The
Second Sex, women in a patriarchal society become defined as weaker or
lesser in relation to rise of masculine categories of mastery, assertion, and
dominance (de Beauvoir, 1989, p. 34). Men as the masters of the house-
holds create the categories of power through which women’s relative
value (and the value of subordinate men) is then determined. Patriarchy
is not simply the rule of men functioning as fathers; it is the rule of domi-
nant elite males (literally, exercising the authority of fathers as patriarchy
constructs it) over all others, women and men, enslaved and free, gender
conforming or not, all included in a system of hegemonic values and rules
crafted to perpetuate this patriarchal power.
Patriarchy enforces its codes and values through a combination of
sexism, misogyny, and paternalism. Sexism, “the branch of patriarchal
ideology that justifies and rationalizes a patriarchal social order,” and
misogyny, “the system that polices and enforces ” patriarchy’s “governing
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 27
norms and expectations” are two closely interrelated means of perpetu-
ating patriarchy (Manne, 2018, p. 20). Paternalism, “the interference of a
state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended
or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off
or protected from harm” is a closely related process wherein patriarchy
is enacted (Dworkin, 2020). All three act in distinctive ways to justify,
enforce, and enact patriarchal society, often with religious support and
institutionalization.
Sexism, as defined by Kate Manne in Down Girl (2018)‚ is the
ideology and science of patriarchy, the set of values and assumptions
about female–male difference that justifies patriarchy and provides the
rational arguments for its implementation. Sexism elevates the social and
relational value of the biological differences between women and men to
seemingly natural functional and affective differences. Mildly developed,
especially in religious language, as complementarianism (think mommy
and daddy), or radically defended as absolute difference (think Venus
and Mars), sexism posits that the differences between women and men
is part of a functional duality in which the strengths of one complements
the weakness of the other, all as part of a divine plan that established a
human division of labor: women as communal receivers, nurturing rearers
of children, harvesters of domestic production, and emotional supporters
of men; men as individual agents, protectors of women and children,
hunters of wild game, and rational decision-makers and planners. Some
defenders of complementarianism argue that it does not necessitate hierar-
chical power relations, that these different roles can be seen as a balanced,
mutual, and equitable sharing of responsibilities, but the very way in
which the roles are structured aligns more closely to those who see a
radical difference between the very natures of women and men.
Misogyny, also according to Manne, is patriarchy’s enforcement mech-
anism and morality. Misogyny is what patriarchy does, how it attacks,
belittles, and blocks women from asserting equality, power, and authority.
Fundamentally, misogynistic actions threaten women who fail to fulfill
the expectations of patriarchal society, who refuse to play the dutiful
supportive spouse, the unassertive and supportive employee, or the defer-
ential and receptive leader, on the rare occasion when women are allowed
access to leadership roles. Misogynistic threats call out women who
choose to violate the gender and behavioral norms of patriarchal society,
making an effort to put them back in their proper place. Policing role
norms in patriarchal society is the core function of misogyny, which may
28 D. J. CREMER
be applied indirectly, training younger men in their proper behaviors
through attacking nonconforming women and subordinate men. Not all
objects of misogynistic attacks, therefore, are women. Misogyny, coupled
with homophobia, is often used to separate boys from their childhood,
making them appropriately masculine in their objectification and derision
of women and gay men (Gilligan & Richards, 2018, pp. 25–26).
Paternalism, the view that “father knows best,” is the third way
patriarchy justifies itself ideologically. Gerald Dworkin defines it as the
underlying assumption of paternalism is that the object of paternal-
istic action is less than fully rational and/or capable of self-direction
and decision-making (Dworkin, 2020). Paternalism denies equity and
emancipation precisely because it is based on a “presumptive claim to
a superior understanding of the subject’s best interests than the subject
may possess him- or herself” (Jackman, 1994, p. 12). The transparent
assertion is that such people require the intervention of a father-figure
in areas of their lives in which they do not have independent authority.
This ideology aligns well with patriarchy in that women and subordi-
nate men are consigned to these categories by their status as support
personnel for dominant males in patriarchal society. Not only are gender
roles reinforced by paternalist actions, so too is the hierarchical relation-
ship between provider and receiver, stronger and weaker, more or less
rational, enacted and reinforced.
Patriarchy is also rooted in the very way gender is conceived, as
the polarity of masculinity and femininity; “the splitting of reason from
emotion and the elevation of mind over body,” elevates the “hierarchy of
patriarchy, that privilege the masculine (reason and mind) over the femi-
nine (emotion and body),” and “dims our ethical intelligence” (Gilligan
&Richards,2018, p. 3). People who are trans, nonbinary, genderqueer,
or otherwise gendered are obscured from view, reduced in power and
status, and often compelled to adopt an identity that is binary gender
conforming in order to access resources and protections within the
patriarchal system. These identities are reinforced through honor codes,
shaming processes, and norms of manhood. A man’s control over “his
women” is a sign of his authority. Women (much like the enslaved and
subordinate males) do not have honor in a patriarchal society; that is
reserved only to the dominant men. Women can, however, destroy male
honor through their own sexual behavior, “by engaging in nonmarital sex,
i.e., by being too sexually active or aggressive (‘unchaste’ or ‘unfaithful’)
before, during, or even after marriage” (Gilligan, 1997, pp. 230–231).
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 29
Aggression, “male bonding” through rituals of hazing and violence, and
all group behaviors determined by codes of masculine performance, mark
the ways in which patriarchy inscribes itself on men and women, on all
people, alike.
Moreover, it is not just dominant elite males who perpetuate the patri-
archal system. Subordinate men and women are not simply the victims of
patriarchy. As Kochurani Abraham notes, they are often “active collabo-
rators of a system that dominates them. Women become collaborators
when they have internalized the hegemonic codes of a system which
allots to them a subjugated status and transmits the traditions of this
system uncritically.” The hegemonic power of patriarchy creates women
and subordinate men as sexists, misogynists, and paternalists. This social
and ideological power is perpetuated through various forms of culture,
controlling the system of images and ideas of a society in order to rein-
force the patriarchal hierarchy of values. Enshrined in social mores and
laws, patriarchy has especially relied on religion in the transmission and
maintenance of these relationships: “when women assimilate religious
prescriptions uncritically, believing that this is the way reality is defined,
they get trapped by the hegemonic exercise of power.” This creates a
highly complex and ambivalent situation where women are both captive
of patriarchal power, and also at times serve as uncritical perpetuators of
the very same system on oppression, having internalized “the patriarchally
defined ‘feminine ideal’ as a socioreligious system of self-surveillance,” in
which they are caught (Abraham, 2019, pp. 5–9). In both cases, the hege-
monic power of patriarchy, initially placing them in the role of servant,
cannot be lost to sight as it is the fundamental driving force of both their
subjugation and service to it.
Ancient Philosophy and Religion
Ancient societies created many different ways to express and enforce these
patriarchal values and rules. One of the earliest accounts is in the Hebrew
Bible with the establishment of the covenant with the people of Israel,
codified in writing about the time of King David of Jerusalem 3000 years
ago. Five hundred years later, in ancient Greece, a society set in the values
described by Homer, Aeschylus, Plato, and Aristotle further defined the
“rule of fathers” in the Western tradition, while in ancient China the “rule
of the gentleman” was established by Confucian philosophy. European
culture was further defined by the growing influence of Roman law and
30 D. J. CREMER
its merger with the Christianity of the New Testament. Through the rise
of imperialism and colonialism, Western patriarchy helped shape modern
patriarchy in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, merging with indigenous
patriarchies of their own.
The creation of patriarchal societies necessitated the overthrow of any
previous social organization, assuming one existed, that was egalitarian or
matrilineal in nature. Often symbolized through the worship of powerful
fertility goddesses led by a caste of female priests, these non-patriarchal
societies, according to Lerner, saw women “still play active and respected
roles in mediating between humans and gods as priestesses, seers, diviners,
and healers” in that their “power, especially the power to give life, is
worshiped by men and women in the form of powerful goddesses” who
are linked to agricultural and human fertility (Lerner, 1986,p.10).
These goddesses and their priestesses were eventually replaced by a domi-
nant male deity, who assumed their power and authority. Lerner sees
the emergence of Hebrew monotheism as an example of the attack on
the widespread cults of the various fertility goddesses. In the writing of
the Book of Genesis, creativity and procreativity are ascribed to an all-
powerful God, whose epitaphs of “Lord” and “King” establish him as a
male god. This symbolic devaluing of women in relation to the divine
becomes one of the founding metaphors of Western civilization.
Genesis has in effect a rather ambivalent relationship to patriarchy, at
least in terms of the creation narratives. Eve being born from the rib
of Adam has been read as either a statement of equity (side by side),
subordination (under his arm), or even superiority (the last made is the
greatest made). The second reading has historically been the predominant
one, where Eve is established as Adam’s helpmeet, his fulfillment, and his
complementary completion, reinforced by the curse after the fall from the
garden of Eden, where God commands that Eve will suffer the pains of
labor and, because of her desire for her husband, he will rule over her
(Genesis 3:16). God’s act of subordinating women to men, especially in
the spousal relationship, is the original misogynistic act, punishing Eve for
daring to eat of the tree of knowledge and for tempting her husband to
do the same, making patriarchy the consequence sin that now carries the
force of divine law.
This tension is especially enshrined in ancient Hebraic law, as found in
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Extending
beyond husband–wife relationships to father–daughter roles, as Eliza-
beth Schüssler Fiorenza has noted, “in a patriarchal family structure, the
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 31
daughter is dependent upon her father or brother and the wife becomes
totally reliant on her husband. Thus, the woman remains all her life a
minor. The Decalogue includes a man’s wife among his possessions, along
with his house and land, his male and female slaves, his ox and his ass
(Exod. 20:17; Deut.5:21)” (Schüssler Fiorenza, 2013, p. 28). The divine
law enshrines sexism, and the resulting androcentrism of the religious
texts appears repeatedly in the stories of Abraham, the patriarch par excel-
lence. The story of Sarah and Abraham in Egypt, where to save himself
Abraham lies and tells the Egyptians she is his sister, so that she can be
taken into a harem without them needing thereby to kill Abraham to
obtain her, is both critically recounted (Genesis 12) and explained away
(Genesis 20). These tensions exist throughout the Jewish (and later Chris-
tian) scriptures, where emancipatory and egalitarian readings of the text
exist side by side with controlling and diminishing acts, yet the patri-
archal interpretation often has the last word and becomes the standard
interpretation in patriarchal society.
Ancient Greek narrative and philosophy contributed much to the
contours and definitions of patriarchy. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey,
composed in the seventh century BCE and centering on the archaic war
against Troy and its aftermath, describe a society of warriors and wives
who are clearly in a militaristic, patriarchal society (Homer, 2016,2017).
Dating from the late eighth or early seventh century BCE, the epic poems
enshrined for generations the characteristics of heroic male actors: fury,
rage, hubris, pride, and fame. Despite the fact that Homer often portrays
these values in a critical manner, their preeminence in the texts established
them, alongside the patriarchal narratives of the Bible, as the defining
stories of generations of women and men in Western society and culture.
Women such as Helen and Penelope are portrayed primarily as objects
of male desire, whether in the rivalry between Agamemnon and Hector
that causes the Trojan War itself or in the numerous suitors that occupy
Odysseus’ home striving for the hand of Odysseus’ wife, who is assumed
to be his widow. If women have any agency at all, in these classic poems,
it is through the exercise of seductive charms and feminine wiles, the
classic countermoves of subordinated women in patriarchal society. The
texts themselves, often offered today to young men and women as part
of a traditional education, inscribe the limited and acceptable means of
resistance and agency for women writing patriarchy.
What happens when women overstep these acceptable boundaries
becomes the substance of another epic set of stories from the Greek
32 D. J. CREMER
tradition. In Aeschylus’ trilogy of plays, from the fifth century BCE, The
Oresteia, the power and tragedy of patriarchy is on full display (Aeschylus,
2011). Agamemnon returns from his victory at Troy to find his wife
Clytemnestra with his cousin Aegisthus, plotting Agamemnon’s death for
sacrificing his and Clytemnestra’s daughter, Iphigenia, in exchange for
favorable winds to Troy. A father’s life and death authority over his chil-
dren is challenged by the grieving mother, who conspires successfully to
kill him. Their son, Orestes, with his sister Electra, in turn conspire and
successfully kill their mother and her new husband, Aegisthus. The Furies,
three goddesses of the underworld, pursue Orestes to seek vengeance for
his murder of his mother. They bring him to trial before the gods, with
Apollo, representing masculine reason, defending Orestes. Athena casts
the deciding vote, freeing Orestes, and convincing the Furies to abandon
their quest for vengeance. Reason triumphs over emotion, male authority
to decide life or death is upheld, and peace is bought at the cost of the
Furies power, not to mention the lives of Iphigenia and Clytemnestra.
For Carol Gilligan and David Richards, “Athena symbolizes the power
that women can wield in patriarchy: she is solely of the father, a girl
completely separated from women, a daughter born out of the head of
Zeus, who swallowed her mother, turning her into a fly” (Gilligan &
Richards, 2008, p. 13). Female complicity in the enactment of patriarchy,
as means to acquiring limited power for themselves on patriarchy’s terms,
is affirmed as efforts to obtain direct authority are repudiated.
The parallels in Greek philosophy of the same time are more than
apparent. Plato’s dialogues Meno,Phaedo,andtheRepublic reveal
numerous sexist assumptions about men and women, most notable of
which is the classic assignment of the public discursive sphere to men
and the private domestic sphere to women. In the Meno, the title char-
acter sets the stage of the discussion of virtue as follows: “First, then if
it’s the virtue of a man you want, it’s easy to say that this is the virtue
of a man: to be sufficient to carry on the affairs of the city and while
carrying them on to do well by his friends and harm to his enemies; and
to take care that he not suffer any such thing himself. And if it’s the
virtue of a woman you want, that’s not hard to go through, in that she
needs to manage the household well, conserving what is inside and being
obedient to her man” (Plato, 2004, p. 3). For Plato, the ascent of the soul
by the light of reason, described in both the Phaedo and the Republic,
was a possibility only for men, since the journey requires the purging of
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 33
all “bodily concerns,” something women would find difficult to accom-
plish, encumbered as women are by a womb and the resulting blood
flow of menstruation (Mercer, 2019). To move beyond her body would
be to move beyond what made her a woman, an irresolvable contradic-
tion (that men are unencumbered by their own bodily nature and fluids
never seems to be an issue). There may be rare exceptions for Plato, if
the state provided equal education and training, and if individual women
measured up to the demands of the roles they might play (as defined by
men), but both would be exceptional cases. The norm in classical Greek
society was that love between two men (particularly between one that is
older—the teacher—and another that is younger—the student) is consid-
ered more sophisticated than love between and a man and a woman; only
for matters of procreation and the construction of the patriarchal family
should men and women come together. In the end, biology as destiny is
given philosophical grounding in support of the patriarchal order.
The other founding metaphor is supplied by Aristotelian philosophy,
one also based on the household as the model of the political state, and
for which Aristotle assumes as a given that women are incomplete and
damaged human beings of an entirely different order than men. He takes
as obviously given that “the relation of male to female is that of what is
better by nature to what is worse, and that of ruler to ruled” (Aristotle,
2017, p. 7). It follows therefore that men are better suited to political
leadership, just as an elder male is more suitable than a younger one:
“the male, unless he is somehow formed contrary to nature, is by nature
more capable of leading than a female, and someone older and complete
than someone younger and incomplete” (Aristotle, 2017, p. 18). Both
of these claims are rooted in an assertion of a fundamental difference of
character, where “the temperance of a man is not the same as that of a
woman and a man, and neither is the courage or justice…but rather men
have a ruling courage and women assistant courage, and the same holds
of the other virtues” (Aristotle, 2017, p. 20). Apparent natural difference
in ability and character ground the assertion of patriarchy, an assertion
for which no evidence or argument is ever truly presented. It is simply
assumed and obvious to all. It is with the creation of these two metaphor-
ical constructs, which are built into the very foundations of the symbol
systems of Western civilization, that the subordination of women comes
to be seen as “natural,” hence it becomes invisible. One of the hallmarks
34 D. J. CREMER
of patriarchy is its apparent and unquestioned assumption of female infe-
riority, so deeply assumed and unconsciously acted upon that it is often
not even open to question.
Western culture is not unique in making these unsupported assertions
that the different natures of women and men create an unquestioned
hierarchy of the latter over the former. Confucian philosophy, developed
between the fifth and first centuries BCE, is also androcentric, much like
the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek poetry and philosophy, a discussion
between men mostly about men. The Analects, one of the classics of
Confucian literature, barely mentions women at all, save for one passage
where “the Master said, ‘Women and servants are particularly hard to
manage. If you are too familiar with them, they grow insolent, but if you
are too distant, they grow resentful’” (Confucius, 2003, p. 211). The five
hierarchal relationships of classical Confucian filial piety (ruler to ruled,
father to son, elder brother to younger brother, husband to wife, and
between friends) are all male to male relationships save for the one about
wives being subordinate to their husbands. Even when more clearly elab-
orated, as in the Yili, Book of Etiquette and Rites, women are defined
only in relationship to men: “Before marrying, she follows her father; after
marrying she follows her husband; when her husband dies, she follows her
son” (Yao, 2003, p. 525). As in the Western tradition, virtually all rela-
tionships are relations of inequality and power differentials, with women
always occupying the inferior position.
The commentaries on the Confucian classics are even more explicit on
the danger women represent in a patriarchal society. The Zuo Commen-
tary, in particular, written sometime between the fifth and first centuries
BCE, adds to the above passage and notes that women are “a force anal-
ogous to alcohol that intoxicates men and leads them into immorality,”
especially in violating moral norms regarding proper leadership, as devious
concubines and unscrupulous wives can lead men into making disastrous
political decisions (Confucius, 2003, p. 211). The ideology of separate
spheres, of distinctive public and private domains, warns of the dangers of
intermixing these realms, of how feminine power corrupts male authority,
and the distance created by the patriarchal structure of society is a defen-
sive measure for the common good. Although public life models domestic
arrangements, both thus falling under patriarchal authority, they are also
to be kept distinct from each other. One of the other defining charac-
teristics of patriarchy is the desire to have things both ways, connected
yet separate, included yet subservient, necessary yet dangerous. In both
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 35
its ancient Greek and Chinese manifestations, patriarchy is an incredibly
flexible yet rigid ideology, bending to circumstances and situations and
yet holding itself together as a coherent system of social organization.
The case is the same in ancient Rome. Roman law inscribed pater-
nalism and patriarchy on its consideration of property rights, where “a
key reason for articulating patriarchal rights over persons in terms of
property was that paterfamilias was also the most common word for a
property owner” (Miller, 2017, p. 8). While control of property was
assured by law, others forms of control were more problematic, from the
patriarchal perspective. Women were seen by men as both opportunity
and danger, especially when it came to marriage and the creation of the
family. Arranged marriages in Rome placed great weight on “the chastity
and fidelity of women, for only such limitations on women’s sexuality
could assure their husbands that a woman’s children were his” (Gilligan
&Richards,2008, p. 27). As in many patriarchal societies, fathers decided
whom their children, especially their daughters, would marry, almost
always to further the political and/or economic status of the family. In
marriage, even when women were trusted advisors and confidants to their
husbands, it was always behind the scenes. The messaging to women was
clear: be attractive, but not too attractive; be helpful, but do not be seen
as being helpful. Roman mothers, as women in many patriarchal societies
have experienced, had to witness their sons being separated from them
and at an early age trained for war, their daughters are taken from them
at adolescence and married away for the fortunes of the family. These are
just a pair of the ways that patriarchy in the ancient world, and in many
ways to this day, ruptured “intimate relationships… [splitting] mind and
body, thought and emotion, self and relationships” (Gilligan & Richards,
2008, p. 266). Patriarchy is not merely oppressive; it is, as many have
noted, traumatizing in its effects.
Early Christianity was no exception to these patriarchal norms,
although as in the Hebrew Scriptures, ambivalence exists, only to be over-
whelmed by androcentric prescriptions and interpretations. As with the
founders of other religions, one dimension of the humanity of the histor-
ical Jesus is his gender; he was incarnated as a male human being. This
historical fact has been used throughout the Christian tradition as one
of the ways to deny the full humanity of women, despite the fact that
women were included among the early disciples, witnessed his execution,
and were the first to proclaim his resurrection. The New Testament often
downplays their contributions, relegating them to silence and anonymity.
36 D. J. CREMER
In the “so-called household code texts of the later Pauline literature,”
patriarchy is upheld and demands “the subordination of the wife to the
husband… [using] rules of conduct for women, children, and slaves [that]
are not specifically Christian, but are a part of the Jewish and Greco-
Roman culture of the time” (Schüssler Fiorenza, 2013,p.35).What
had existed initially as a radical movement founded on egalitarian inclu-
sion, property sharing, and the “assertion that ‘there is neither male nor
female’ (Gal 3:28)… was replaced by traditional patriarchy” of defined
subordinate roles for women (Rakoczy, 2008, p. 140).
The ascendancy of Late Roman patriarchy within Christianity is
captured by the work of Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century CE.
In a manner similar to the Confucian suspicion of women, he wrote to
his friend Laetus that he ought to “watch out that she does not twist and
turn you for the worse. What difference does it make whether it is in a
wife or in a mother, provided we nonetheless avoid Eve in any woman?”
(Augustine, 2005, p. 168). Women are generally a source of temptation
for Augustine, well-known as he is for his struggles with concupiscence
or sexual desire. The original woman, Eve, and her role in the story of
Genesis was also much on his mind. Augustine could not comprehend
even how Eve was to be a helper for Adam, unless it was through procre-
ation: “If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for
what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed
for that, man would have been a better help for man” (Augustine, 1982,
p. 75). One might be tempted to excuse these comments as the typical
prejudice of the age, yet Augustine remains one of the most influential of
early Christian writers. In effect, he found little useful in women, arguing
that they could provide small “comfort in solitude. How much more plea-
sure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than
when a man and a woman cohabitate?” (Augustine, 1982, p. 75). The
diminution of women in the patriarchy of late antiquity to a role only
in procreation, and otherwise either useless or a danger, has had serious
consequences for the construction of patriarchy into modernity.
The overall tradition set by these sources provided all that was neces-
sary to define, justify, enforce, and act upon patriarchy. The divine male
God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, whether as lord or father, had
created a world in which the natural order of things was characterized by
dependent women and dominant men. Fathers ruled over their house-
holds, and thus by extension over the state, ideally in a manner that
cared for those dependent persons entrusted to their rule, but in actuality
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 37
often in a ruthless and exploitative way. Men are leaders, heroes, adven-
tures, statesmen, prophets, and kings. Women are not. Women are instead
subject to their fathers, then their husbands, and finally their sons. She is
one of his possessions, subject to his control, a diminished, dangerous,
and dependent person. Her utility is defined by her ability to provide
children to her husband and manage the affairs of his household. When
she oversteps these bounds, refuses to accept her subordinate role, she is
subject to punishment, even to the point of death. The extent to which
these norms and conditions remain true in the contemporary world is
both highly variable and frustratingly persistent.
Modern Patriarchy
Up through the eighteenth century CE, patriarchal ideology held
powerful sway over the imaginations and actions of men and women,
creating “a powerful discursive tradition that affected the way relations
between them were thought about, debated, contested and reinvented,
by both the rulers and the ruled” (Miller, 2017, p. 12). Classical educa-
tion in the West, Confucian education in the East, both converged in
the effort to sustain and reinforce the patriarchal hierarchy of society,
establishing norms for behavior, rules of law, and forces for compulsion.
Patriarchal readings of the Bible, Greek literature, and the Confucian clas-
sics served as respective proof-texts for patriarchal ideology. Nevertheless,
late in the century, voices arose that began to challenge this ideology
on the basis of both new conceptions of human equality that confronted
patriarchy directly as well as new arguments for women’s equality on the
basis of a maternalist ideology that claimed equal status to paternalism
and indirectly challenged the dominance of patriarchal structures.
Patriarchy varied by location: in rural communities, among aristocratic
families, and in the new urban economies. For rural women, their posi-
tion was most traditional; their positions as a new daughter-in-law, as a
surviving widow, or as the reigning wife and mother were all dependent
upon the status of their husband within the family. They had begun to
assert some control over the courting rituals and marriage of their chil-
dren, and were responsible exclusively for the realm of childbirth, but
their power, such as it was, was clearly circumscribed to the domestic
sphere. Aristocratic patriarchy had become stronger, and women’s repro-
ductive, as opposed to their productive, roles were even more emphasized
and exaggerated. Marriage was a political and dynastic act, and childbirth
38 D. J. CREMER
was the aristocratic women’s chief occupation. Noblewomen hired wet-
nurses, attended to restricted forms of hierarchy, and indulged in various
physical pleasures, all of which served to differentiate their position in
society from that of the villager. Lastly, urban women were an interesting
combination of these two: freer than the rural women, yet just as impor-
tant to the family’s economic well-being. They worked a trade with their
husbands, used nursemaids, or even practiced their own trades: weaving,
lacemaking, etc. Yet they were most often semi-skilled and less trained
than males, unable to obtain apprenticeships or guild memberships, and
many urban women were either servants in aristocratic households or
laborers in the newly emerging factory economy (Smith, 1988).
One of the first women to challenge directly the patriarchal order
was Mary Wollstonecraft in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman,
written in 1791. Published during the French Revolution, Wollstonecraft
attacked first of all what she saw patriarchy had done to aristocratic and
urban women: imprisoned on the throne of beauty, solicited by men for
their inferiority, ener vated by male standards, made dependent, weak,
and frivolous. The consequences of patriarchy for women were that their
virtues were socially defined solely as patience, docility, good humor, and
flexibility, all of which rendered women apparently inferior only because
they had been raised to see themselves as such. Fully embracing the values
of the revolutionary age: reason, virtue, temperance, knowledge, and a
belief in the laws of society, Wollstonecraft demanded that men consider
women as human beings first, born with equal reason, encumbered only
by the restrictions patriarchal society placed upon them, and subjugated to
male authority only through the threat of force. She uncovered the brute
reality behind patriarchy, a dependency on a morality based on “might
makes right”: men may by nature be stronger, but that does not make
them by reason any more virtuous.
For Wollstonecraft, marriage ought to be a partnership, where sexual
distinctions are only motivated by love, not convention or social mores.
Women ought to be their husband’s friend and companion, rather than
his dependent. Merely because women have been subjugated, she argued,
is no proof of their inferiority. In fact, such equality, based on “rational
fellowship,” would make of women “more observant daughters, more
affectionate sisters, more faithful wives, more reasonable mothers–in a
word, better citizens” (Wollstonecraft, 1999, p. 240). In effect, she
sought to rewrite the terms of the set of relationships women and men
naturally found themselves in, to reestablish them on a basis of reason,
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 39
virtue, equality, and partnership. Her chief means of reform was through
education. Women were to be educated in serious subjects, and “sexual
virtue,” that is gendered virtue, which men or women were to partake of
to the exclusion of the other, were to be abolished. The difficulty with
her at the time of radical reforms was that it would only be possible for
women of the aristocratic or urban classes to benefit from them; working-
class and rural women would still need to fulfill many of the domestic
responsibilities they had previously shouldered so that other women could
be free from patriarchy. Wollstonecraft laid the foundation for modern
Western feminism in making these claims against patriarchy, revealing
both the pernicious power that patriarchy represented as well as the class
privileges that the overthrow of patriarchy alone could not erase. The
tension in Wollstonecraft’s analysis and program between revolutionary
change on the basis of sex and/or on the basis of class would persist well
into the next two hundred years.
An alternative to patriarchy that sought to preserve, rather than over-
throw, some of the gendered virtues Wollstonecraft decried, was the
development of an ideology of maternalism. Coming in the nineteenth
century, on a wave of resistance both to the established patriarchy and
to rational, liberal efforts to make women and men equals in the public
sphere (in effect abolishing the distinction of separate spheres), mater-
nalism was a religiously inspired alternative to paternalism, arguing that
women were more than capable of caring for themselves and their fami-
lies if given the opportunity. Arguing more for equality of responsibility
and choice within a traditional ideology of separate spheres, maternalist
women argued for real autonomy and authority within the domestic
realm, still leaving public affairs to men. Driven by the intersection of
working-class, religious, and anti-paternalist concerns, they advanced a
claim, based on their roles as wives and mothers, for freedom to focus
on their domestic roles, to be freed from the double burden of working
to manage the household and working to earn income for the family.
From their class perspective, what was most hypocritical of existing patri-
archy was that it consigned women to the domestic sphere in theory while
compelling lower-class and rural women to work doubly hard at earning
income outside the home in a factory or shop, or at least outside their role
by taking in income-generating piece work they could do from home.
By the early twentieth century, this idea had crystallized in a movement
among religious working women in Europe. Elisabeth Gnauck-Kühne,
40 D. J. CREMER
who was instrumental in the organization of German Catholic working-
women, “openly rejected the idea that the ‘women’s question’ would
be solved if only women could return to their homes” (Cremer, 2001,
p. 428). The old paternalist slogan “everything for–but nothing through
the worker,” she provocatively replaced with an emancipatory one: “We
do not want your soup; give us our rights, and then we will eat meat!”
She would not tolerate any suggestion that a woman’s double burden
of labor inside and outside the home was not a reality that had to
be addressed: “The saying, that [women] ‘belong in the house’ regret-
fully does not meet with reality any more. In fact, it has become a
bitter irony” (Gnauck-Kühne, 1906). To many of her contemporaries,
a Catholic middle-class woman speaking of working women organizing
for themselves, of working women’s “rights,” and of the “bitter irony”
of working women’s double burden seemed oddly out of place, yet she
got to the heart of one of the contradictions of patriarchy: expecting
women to fulfill contradictory and conflicting expectations. Her solution
was empowering women to make a choice between domestic labor (which
has unrecognized and unaccounted value in and of itself) and remu-
nerative labor (whether inside her home our outside of it). The point
was to give women the right to make decisions for themselves, without
also requiring the total revolution of the system itself. Class intersections
with patriarchy, as well as the tension between revolution, rights, and
reform, dominated women’s efforts to change, if not end, the system of
patriarchal oppression until the late twentieth century.
By then, questions of gender and race, or more precisely the construc-
tions of gender and race, complicated the understanding and analysis of
patriarchy and different women’s positions within the patriarchal order.
It was increasingly understood that the long-established binary gender
identities based on biological sex were not primarily claims about biology
but rather claims about power. Examining law, literature, institutions, and
politics, as we have done here, reveals what is constitutive of the social
construction of gender, drawing attention to the ways in which these
sources explain the different behaviors and unequal conditions of women
and men. Gender differences, often invoked in order to establish not
truths about sexual difference, more powerfully offer legitimization for
patriarchal policies, practices, and power, which in turn rest on assuming
the acceptance of gendered relationships (Scott, 1986). The very way
we think concerning gender and sex, the way gender is acted upon and
performed, creates an invisible and self-referential system (Butler, 1988).
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 41
Successfully breaking into patriarchy and undoing it becomes all the more
difficult, requiring the investigation of religious, social, literary, legal, and
political domains to get to the root of patriarchal power.
The integration of the question of race into this dynamic complicates
the analysis and possible alternative strategies to overcoming patriarchy
even further. It also helps explain why the overcoming of patriarchy has
been such a difficult and lengthy process. Given that all human actors
are not only members of identifiable groups, they are also all particular
and specific. No one type of human being represents universal humanity.
Gender and the multiple and contradictory meanings we attribute to
sexual difference, as well as race and the multiple and contradictory mean-
ings we attribute to physical appearance in terms of skin colors, facial
features, and hair textures, are both contemporary aspects of social organi-
zation. The basic biological sexual differences of female and male, and the
assumptions about this difference patriarchy makes, are subject to multiple
complications when we take into account how the constructions of race
and gender intersect with sexual difference, showing the interconnections
between patriarchal power and racism. Focusing on “the concept of inter-
sectionality to denote the various ways in which race and gender interact”
(Crenshaw, 1994, p. 94), one can see the complex set of forces patri-
archy draws upon to sustain itself. The power of racism to erase some
women from visibility, to make their particular struggles and violence
they suffer indiscernible. The multiple ways patriarchy, in alliance with
racism and through its own sexism, misogyny, and paternalism, segregate,
violate, and render invisible the oppression of many women, has become a
constituent part of modern patriarchy, which cannot be fully understood
without this kind of intersectional analysis.
Conclusion
“For if patriarchy is anything here and now… I believe it consists largely
(though by no means exclusively) in this uneven, gendered economy of
giving and taking moral-cum-social goods and services” (Manne, 2018,
p. 107). One final way to think about patriarchy is entitlement: the view
that men are entitled by their nature and status simply as men to take
certain valuable goods from women (affection, obedience, sex, defer-
ence, etc.), who in turn are obligated to give, by their nature and status,
these same goods. The sexist ideology that justifies this, that women are
naturally weaker, inferior, and dependent, the misogynist enforcement
42 D. J. CREMER
that punishes women through threats and violence those who refuse to
deliver these goods, and the paternalist practice that defines how men
exercise patriarchal control over women, all are part of this patriarchal
economy. Religious belief has justified the kinds of moral goods women
are expected to give, primary among them domestic subservience and
children. Society’s norms have determined the kinds of social goods
women are expected to give, primary among them economic support
and deference. Both religious and social beliefs define what men are
legitimately able to take from women and justify the kinds of violence
men may exercise when women refuse to comply. Class, gender, and
racial status affect and complicate this fundamental relationship, adding
enhanced entitlements and expanded dimensions of expected giving and
demanded taking to the patriarchal economy.
Overcoming patriarchy will take combined, concerted, and long-term
effort. A system thousands of years in the making cannot be overturned
in a few decades or even a few generations. Attention to the diverse ways
patriarchy justifies, enforces, and extends its authority over the diverse
lives of more than a few billion women obviously takes the time and
effort of many different people. Contributions from multiple perspectives
and experiences are constantly required to keep up with the shifting ways
patriarchy perpetuates itself. Reforms, even revolutions, in educational
methods, domestic arrangements, and workplace expectations, coupled
with leadership development, political progress, and racial equity will be
required. Patriarchy touches all aspects of our contemporary life, and its
influences are felt in every avenue of the contemporary world. If the
“rule of fathers” is to come to an end, women and men will have to
join together in a consistent effort to remove patriarchal expectations
and entitlement from religious belief, social organization, literature, and
law in multiple cultures across the planet. Knowing that patriarchy is a
constructed ideology, designed to the benefit of the few over the many,
to perpetuate a specific form of oppressive power, and not an immutable
natural or divine law inextricably embedded in absolute sexual difference,
is the beginning of that end.
Chapter Takeaways
1. Patriarchy is an ancient and pervasive form of social organization
rooted in an ideology concerning human sexuality and gender. It
2 PATRIARCHY, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY 43
forms a persistent, pervasive, and unavoidable problem throughout
the contemporary world.
2. Patriarchy is the way older and dominant men acquire and hold
power over all women and younger, subordinate men. It has taken
different and diverse forms throughout time and space that compli-
cate the analysis of patriarchal power and place for its overcoming.
3. It is composed of a combination of sexism (its justification),
misogyny (its enforcement), and paternalism (its practice).
4. Its roots are deeply embedded in Western and Eastern literary,
religious, and philosophical traditions.
5. Modern patriarchy is complicated and enhanced by class, gender,
and racial hierarchies that reinforce patriarchal power.
6. The struggle to overcome patriarchy has been and will be a long and
protracted effort by many people over many generations.
References
Abraham, K. (2019). Persisting patriarchy: Intersectionalities, negotiations, subver-
sions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aeschylus. (2011). The complete Aeschylus: Volume one: The Oresteia (A. Shapiro,
Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. (2017). Politics (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Augustine. (1982). The literal meaning of genesis (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press.
Augustine. (2005). The works of Saint Augustine: A new translation for the 21st
century: Letters, 211–270 (R. Teske, Trans.). Hyde Park, NY: New City Press.
Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in
phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531.
Confucius. (2003). Analects (E. Slingerland, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Cremer, D. (2001). The limits of maternalism: Gender ideology and the south
German Catholic workingwomen’s associations, 1904–1918. The Catholic
Historical Review, 87 (3), 428–451.
Crenshaw, K. (1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of color. In M. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.),
The public nature of private violence (pp. 93–118). New York: Routledge.
De Beauvoir, S. (1989). The second sex. New York: Vintage.
Dialeti, A. (2018, July). Patriarchy as a category of historical analysis and the
dynamics of power: The example of early modern Italy. Gender & History,
30(2), 331–342.
44 D. J. CREMER
Dworkin, G. (2020) Paternalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford ency-
clopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/
paternalism/.
Gilligan, J. (1997). Violence: Reflections on a national epidemic.NewYork:
Vintage.
Gilligan, C., & Richards, D. (2008). The deepening darkness: Patriarchy, resistance
and democracy’s future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilligan, C., & Richards, D. (2018). Darkness now visible: Patriarchy’s resurgence
and feminist resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gnauck-Kühne, E. (1906). Einführung in die Arbeiterinnenfrage. Mönchenglad-
bach: Volksverein für das katholische Deutschlands.
Homer. (2016). The Iliad (C. Alexander, Trans.). New York: Ecco.
Homer. (2017). The Odyssey (E. Wilson, Trans.). New York: Norton.
Jackman, M. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class,
and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lerner, G. (1986). The creation of patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Manne, K. (2018). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Mercer, C. (2019, July 1). The philosophical origins of patriarchy.
The Nation.https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/patriarchy-sexism-
philosophy-reproductive-rights/.
Miller, P. (2017). Patriarchy. Taylor & Francis.
Plato. (2004). Plato’s Meno (G. Anastaplo & L. Berns, Trans.). Newburyport,
MA: Focus Publishing.
Rakoczy, S. (2008). The theological vision of Elizabeth A Johnson. Scriptura,
98, 137–155.
Schüssler Fiorenza, E. (2013). Interpreting patriarchal traditions. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress.
Scott, J. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. American
Historical Review, 91(5), 1053–1075.
Smith, B. (1988). Changing lives: Women in European history since 1700.New
York:D.C.Heath.
Wollstonecraft, M. (1999). Vindication of the rights of woman. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Yao, X. (Ed.). (2003). RoutledgeCurzon encyclopedia of confucianism (Vol. 2).
New York: Routledge.
CHAPTER 3
Gender-Based Inequality in the Modern
American Society
EmeraldM.Archer
Introduction
American discourse on gender has changed dramatically over the course
of the twentieth century and inequalities between women and men are
continually challenged in all spheres of life in the twenty-first century.
Yet, gender gaps and inequalities persist: full-time working women make
only 85 cents for every dollar that their male counterparts earn, women
shoulder the majority of the domestic load (e.g., childcare, housework)
in their partnerships, and they are less likely to hold executive positions
in corporate America or represent large constituencies as elected offi-
cials. How do these gaps persist in an advanced industrialized country
that has enjoyed social and economic transformation in the modern era?
Enduring gender stereotypes are largely responsible for these stubborn
inequities that frame how women and men interact with one another
and inform our beliefs about the roles each is permitted to inhabit.
Negotiations among individuals are continuously influenced by gender
E. M. Archer (B)
Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, CA, USA
e-mail: emarcher@msmu.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_3
45
46 E. M. ARCHER
stereotypes, which results in antiquated thinking about men and women
and their relationships with one another that are carried forward and
reproduced unconsciously. This chapter explores theoretical perspectives
from different disciplines that elucidate how gender differences and hier-
archies function and persist over time. Cumulative disadvantage is utilized
as a case study to illustrate the ways in which gender stereotypes produce
inequities across a woman’s career. Until men and women can break free
from unconscious bias and reliance on gender stereotypes, inequities like
the gender wage gap and underrepresentation in key economic sectors
will continue to be the norm rather than the exception.
Gender-Based Inequality in the United States
Evidence for progress made in the name of gender equity over the last
century is ample in the United States. Over the last one hundred years,
women won the vote, enjoyed the pursuit of degrees in higher educa-
tion, entered the paid labor force, lead Fortune 500 companies, and
served in elected offices at the local, state, and national levels. Despite
women’s undisputed progress and clear gains, progress has stagnated and
gaps remain.
The share of women participating in the labor force has grown over
the last several decades and recently leveled off (Horowitz, Parker, &
Stepler, 2017). Over half (57%) of women (aged 16 and older) were
either employed or looking for work in 2017, which is slightly more than
were in the 1980 labor force (51%) but less than the 1999 labor force
(60%). Mothers entering the labor force have been a primary driver of
the increased share of women participating, holding steady at 73% since
2000.
Women’s progress in the American workforce is, in part, a result of
gains made in educational attainment. Women aged 25–64 are more likely
than their male counterparts to have a bachelor’s degree; specifically, “38%
of these women and 33% of men had a bachelor’s degree” (Geiger &
Parker, 2018). A greater share of women than men are attaining postgrad-
uate degrees: “In 2017, 14% of women ages 25 to 64 had an advanced
degree, compared with 12% of men. In 1992, a higher share of men (9%)
than women (6%) in this age group had an advanced degree” (ibid.).
While this is good news, there is no parity when it comes to particular
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) training.
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 47
For example, women receive only 18% of bachelor’s degrees in engi-
neering and computer science; these fields remain sex segregated, which
makes it harder for women to both enter and stay in a male dominated
workforce (National Science Board, 2018).
Occupational sex segregation, or the high concentration of women
and men in different occupations, continues despite women’s educa-
tional attainment and training. Occupations such as “health care support,
administrative assistance, early childhood care and education, and food
preparation and services are composed of more than 60 percent women”
(Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 2017). The segregation in
today’s workforce is, in part, a result of gender stereotypes about men and
women’s work; that is, care taking and administrative work aligns with
expectations Americans have for “women’s work,” while executive and
leadership roles are associated with men’s work. As such, leadership is one
domain where women are still underrepresented. Few women occupy the
C-suite in Fortune 500 companies; women make up only seven percent of
CEOs for these companies and hold 25% of board seats (Connley, 2019).
One-hundred and twenty-seven women (24%) occupy seats in the 2020
U.S. Congress and 90 (29%) hold statewide elective executive offices
across the country (Center for American Women in Politics, 2020).
Even though women have flooded the labor force in the twentieth
century, the gender wage and wealth gap persists. Women continue to
make and save less than their male counterparts, all things being equal.
In 2018, women earned 85 cents for every dollar men earned nation-
ally and the estimated 15 cent gap today has narrowed substantially from
36 cents in 1980 (Graf, Brown, & Patten, 2019). Where parents are
concerned, research had found that mothers in the workforce make less
annually (the motherhood penalty) and fathers get a pay raise (the father-
hood bonus) (Budig, 2014). However, these penalties and rewards are
not felt across the board: “high-income men get the biggest pay bump for
having children, and low-income women pay the biggest price” (Miller,
2014). The wealth gap is another powerful predictor of economic agency
among women. Women across the nation have accrued wealth (assets like
property and homeownership, investments, and financial savings) that is
32% that of men (McCulloch, 2017). Overall, the narrowing of the wage
and wealth gap is attributable to increased educational attainment and
work experience, and the loosening of occupational sex segregation.
It is worth noting that a general review of gender-based inequities
masks real differences among women. It becomes apparent that some
48 E. M. ARCHER
women are more disadvantaged than others when the data are disag-
gregated by race and ethnicity. Compared to white women, the effect
of gender-based inequities are amplified for women of color. Women of
color experience occupational sex segregation at all educational levels, as
they are segregated into lower-wage jobs more than their white peers of
similar skill levels (Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 2017). The
wage gap is also more pronounced for women of color (Hegewisch &
Hartmann, 2019). Compared to white men who have the highest earn-
ings, Asian American women make 90 cents, African-American women
make 62 cents, Native American women make 57 cents, and Latinas make
54 cents for every dollar their white male counterpart earns (National
Partnership for Women & Families, 2020). If women of color are paid
less annually, it follows that they will save less over time: for example,
“where the median single white man has accumulated almost $30,000 in
wealth, single [African American] women have a median wealth of only
$200” (Phillips, 2020). Inequities experienced by women of color are
exacerbated by intersecting systems of oppression.
Due to the stark inequities already discussed, American women are
more likely than men to state that they have faced gender discrimination
at work. Women are twice as likely to say they have experienced at least
one specific form of gender discrimination on the job. Geiger and Parker
(2018) elaborate:
One-in-four working women (25%) say they have earned less than a man
who was doing the same job, compared with just 5% of men who say
they’ve earned less than a female peer. Women are also about four times as
likely as men to say they have been treated as if they were not competent
because of their gender (23% of women vs. 6% of men), and they are about
three times as likely to say they have experienced repeated small slights at
work because of their gender (16% versus 5%).
Beyond the labor force, the home can be a site for gender inequality as
well. Women do the bulk of unpaid labor, the kind that labor economists
define as “time spent doing routine housework, shopping for necessary
household goods, child care, tending to the elderly…and other activi-
ties related to the household maintenance” (Wezerek & Ghodsee, 2020).
In the United States, women perform almost double the work—or an
average of four hours compared to men’s two and a half hours weekly
(ibid.). Working mothers are also more likely to miss work when their
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 49
children are sick or childcare falls through than working fathers (Maume,
2008).
Caregiving responsibilities, whether it is for children or aging family
members, is a concern that sheds light on structural inequality as it
appears in American law and the corporate sector. Paid family leave poli-
cies are designed to help workers balance work and family obligations
by compensating employees while taking time off to care for family
members. However, the United States has no national paid family leave
policy and “only 17 percent of U.S. private-sector workers have access
to paid family leave through their employers” (Rossin-Slater & Stearns,
2020). Low income workers often have no access to this benefit, while
high-income earners have greater access to this opportunity. Rossin-Slater
and Stearns (2020) explain that “federal law requires 12 weeks of job-
protected unpaid leave under the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act,
but stringent eligibility requirements mean that less than two-thirds of the
U.S. workforce is eligible.” Out of necessity, women take far more time
than husbands when it comes to caring for a new child. Ninety percent
of fathers take some time off in this period, but the majority of them take
fewer than 10 days of leave (US Department of Labor, 2017). Organiza-
tions that normalize and actively promote the idea that mothers should
take more leave than fathers preserve gendered stereotypes that ultimately
prevent greater equality in the workforce. Because women and men are
not seen as equal when it comes to caregiving by federal law or orga-
nizational policy, the responsibility of caregiving will continue to fall to
women, inhibiting their professional and career growth by extending their
time away from work (Levs, 2019).
Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding
Gender-Based Inequality
Early explanations of the inequities experienced by men and women in
the workforce and the domestic sphere were described by a function-
alist approach that emphasized sex roles as complementary, and therefore,
uniquely different. Specifically, women bore the responsibility of child-
bearing, and by extension, rearing, while men where unencumbered such
that they could pursue industrial era employment (Murdock, 1949).
It was not until decades later—in the 1960s and 1970s—that feminist
scholars critiqued the functionalist approach and pointed to a system
of stratification that separated men from women (Lopata & Thorne,
50 E. M. ARCHER
1978). Rather than a biological difference claimed in the functionalist
approach, feminists argued that specific behaviors encode gendered mean-
ings, these gendered stereotypes then determine the division of labor,
and finally social structures and institutions incorporate gendered values
within them (Ferree, 1990). Social science disciplines, particularly soci-
ology and psychology, offer many theories to explain the mechanisms
involved in producing and reproducing gender inequity. These theories
are often organized within three theoretical frameworks: (1) individual
level theories, (2) interactional theories, and (3) organizational theories.1
Individual Level Theories
Theories situated in this first level of analysis typically focus on how our
gendered selves come to be. Said another way, these theories elucidate
how people come to identify with (and are conditioned to conform to)
typically masculine or feminine characteristics. Socialization and cultural
influence have been invoked to describe gender inequities across disci-
plines.
Socialization—how boys and girls are raised and internalize their
gendered selves—is one mechanism that can explain differences between
men and women. Parents are the first to influence socialization, but
boys and girls are socialized in gendered ways from preschool forward.
Chodorow (1978) claimed that the relationships mothers have with their
daughters and sons develop antithetical personalities in boys and girls.
For example, the intimate relationships mothers have with their daugh-
ters aid in the development of interpersonal attachment and nurturing
characteristics while the more distant relationship between mothers and
sons emphasizes independence and agency. In preschool settings, Martin
(1998) identifies different way teachers interact with boys and girls.
Preschool teachers are more likely to encourage relaxed behavior (e.g.,
movement in the classroom) among boys and formal behaviors among
girls (e.g., raising a hand before speaking), and disciplinary action for
girls and boys may come in the form of asking them to be quiet or
involve restraining action, respectively. This kind of socialization goes
on throughout a child’s adolescence and as older children acquire these
1This chapter provides a brief snapshot of possible theoretical explanations of gender
inequity and is not exhaustive. For a more robust description of theoretical approaches to
gender inequity, see Scarborough and Risman (2018), Kroska (2014), and Kirby (1999).
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 51
gender-differentiated ways of operating, “they contribute to the social-
ization process by providing models for younger, same-sex children to
follow” (Kroska, 2014, p. 487).
The influence of culture on how boys and girls are socialized has been
well documented. Bem’s (1993) enculturated lens theory emphasizes
the influence of culture on differentiated development. Bem’s psycho-
analytic theory argues “that culture provides individuals with a set of
principles about acceptable thought and behavior, called lenses, which
are embedded in society’s values, social structures, and people’s minds”
(Corrado, 2009, p. 358). A variety of lenses exist in any given society
and these lenses—or implicit norms, values, and beliefs—allow soci-
eties to reproduce themselves over generations. Bem focuses on three
particular lenses that are central to gender differentiation in the United
States: gender polarization, androcentrism, and biological essentialism.
The gender polarization lens offers the idea that men and women are
situated in opposition to one another, underlying the organization of
society. The lens of androcentrism focuses on the concept that men
are superior to women and, as a consequence, the male experience is
the universalized norm against which women are judged. The biological
essentialism lens “both minimizes and justifies gender polarization and
androcentrism by interpreting these lenses as biologically ordained; men’s
presumed superiority, using men as the default category, and unequal
power relations between men and women in society are viewed as the
result of natural, unavoidable differences, rather than socially constructed
differences, between males and females” (ibid., p. 358).
Overall, these lenses work in concert to influence individuals to think
and act in gendered ways that are supported by a particular culture. In the
United States, androcentric cultural norms may be reinforced by practices
as benign as men holding doors open for women, which perpetuates the
notion that women are frail and dependent on the aid of men. Cultural
beliefs about gender can also impact the way individuals evaluate their
own talents. Gendered stereotypes applicable to math aptitude—specif-
ically, that men are better at math than women—can result in women
assessing their math competence as lower than that of men even when test
scores and grades are the same (Correll, 2001). People have a tendency to
feel more competent in tasks that are congruent with gender stereotypes
and less competent in tasks that contradict gender role expectations.
52 E. M. ARCHER
Interactional Level Theories
Gender inequality also emerges due to the way gender influences inter-
personal interactions. The way people perform gender can reinforce
difference and inequality; interactions between men and women often
rely upon gender stereotypes which leads to cognitive bias. The “doing
gender” perspective, along with “expectation states theory,” is useful to
understand how gender inequality persists.
West and Zimmerman (1987) introduced the term “doing gender” in
response to the view that gender is an individual trait and focused on
the way gender is reproduced through the behavior of individuals. This
perspective is predicated on the notions that gender is a social construc-
tion and that gender is achieved through daily interactions with others
(Butler, 1988; Corrado, 2009). West and Zimmerman argued that a
person’s gender performance is judged against their sex category (the
sex assigned at birth by observation of genitalia). A person’s behavior
is judged as acceptable if their gender performance aligns with society’s
expectations of their sex category. If a person’s gender performance and
sex category are incongruous, s/he may be punished and deemed deviant
or abnormal. By “doing gender” and behaving in ways that align with
normative expectations of men and women, people reinforce difference
in society that sustains inequality among men and women. This concept
has been widely used in sociological literature.
The varying degrees by which men and women perform masculinity
and femininity is a good example. In general, men and masculinity are
typically associated with “agentic” traits like assertiveness and decisiveness,
whereas women and femininity are associated with “communal” traits
like trustworthiness and benevolence. Some women and men conform
closely to feminine and masculine standards, respectively, others merge
masculine and feminine behaviors to produce a more androgynous gender
performance, and still others tend toward behaviors associated with the
opposite gender. Scholars who study men and masculinity have posited
that the behavior and identity of men are often held to an ideological
ideal, to a hegemonic masculinity. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005)
state that hegemonic masculinity operates such that the dominant posi-
tion of men and the subordinate position of women is reinforced. In the
American context, hegemonic masculinity emphasizes “…(hetero)sexual
conquest, violence, control over women, and the denigration of homo-
sexuality” (Scarborough & Risman, 2018, p. 344). While no man can
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 53
actually meet the demands of the ideal, they are judged against it and
often try to behave in ways that confirm it. Overall, this extreme form
of masculinity maintains unequal gender structures in society because it
requires the subjugation of women.
The power of stereotypes to create cognitive bias that inform our
behaviors is another reason why gender disparities remain so prominent in
American society. Ridgeway (2011) argues that gender inequality “oper-
ates as a diffuse status characteristic in the background of social relations,
subtly conditioning the way people interpret and evaluate the actions of
others in ways that systematically disadvantage women” (ibid.). Ridgeway
uses what is referred to as “expectation states theory” to show how inter-
actions between men and women are fraught with gender stereotypes.
Expectation states theory explains how expected competence forms the
foundation for status hierarchies in small groups. Moreover, specific pieces
of social information (e.g., apparent gender, racial category, perceived
ability) plays a role in organizing these hierarchies (Berger, Conner,
&Fisek,1974). With respect to gender, people subconsciously orga-
nize interactions based on what they may expect men or women to
do when limited information about an actor is available. This is prob-
lematic as men benefit from positive associations like competence and
agency and women are disadvantaged by the association with empathy
and dependence. These diffuse status characteristics may privilege men
in the context of management and women in the context of childcare
because these contexts align with gender role stereotypes.
Organizational Level Theories
Organizational level theories of gender inequality focus on the way
systems, institutions and organizations put women in a disadvantageous
position relative to men. These macro-level theories show how struc-
tural attributes of workplaces can undermine the advancement of women.
Rehel (2014) investigated how family leave policies shape the opportuni-
ties for men and women in ways that perpetuate gender inequality. When
mothers are given extended periods with their newborns and fathers are
given a few days, the gender difference is reinforced and more equitable
sharing of childcare is minimized.
One of the first studies of gender inequities and organizational struc-
tures was undertaken by Kanter (1977) who argued that women’s lack of
career success resulted from the fact that women were forced to behave
54 E. M. ARCHER
in ways described as “bossy” or “controlling” because the organizational
structure hindered their progress. Three obstacles were enumerated by
Kanter that undermined women at the time: lack of opportunity, limited
access to power and resources, and their token status in the workplace.
Acker’s (1990) theory of gendered organizations builds on Kanter’s
work and argues that gender inequality is persistent because it is baked
into the structure of organizations. Employers have an implicit prefer-
ence for male workers because they stereotypically have fewer distractions
outside of work and, as a consequence, are viewed as more loyal to
an organization. Thus, many employers see men as the ideal worker
(Williams, 2001). This preference places women at a disadvantage since
they are likely to be the primary caregiver for family members. Acker went
further to identify five processes that reproduce gender in organizations:
the division of labor, cultural symbols, workplace interactions, individual
identities, and organizational logic. While all processes are important,
organizational logic is distinctive because it “draws attention to how hier-
arches are rationalized and legitimized in organizations. It encompasses
the logical systems of work rules, job descriptions, pay scales, and job
evaluations that govern bureaucratic organizations” (Williams, Muller, &
Kilanski, 2012). Acker conceived of organizational logic as the taken-for-
granted policies used by managers to exert control in the workplace that
appear gender neutral. Williams, Muller, and Kilanski (2012) illustrate
Acker’s point:
…Organizations supposedly use logical principles to develop job descrip-
tions and determine pay rates. But Acker argues that managers often draw
on gender stereotypes when undertaking these tasks, privileging qual-
ities associated with men and masculinity that then become reified in
organizational hierarchies. Through organizational logic, therefore, gender
discourses are embedded in organizations, and gender inequality at work
results. (p. 550)
It is important to note that organizational logics applied to bureau-
cratic workplace policies can be racialized in the same way that they
are gendered, putting people of color at a disadvantage. For example,
Harvey-Wingfield (2009) investigates how racialization and gendering
intersect to shape the experiences of African-American male nurses
working in a feminized field. She shows that the advancement of these
male nurses in the profession was thwarted by the hostility from their
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 55
female colleagues and that negative stereotypes were applied to them by
doctors and their patients. Namely, they were “misidentified as mainte-
nance workers or janitors, but never as doctors or hospital administrators”
(Scarborough & Risman, 2018, p. 347).
Synthesizing the Theoretical Frameworks
While not exhaustive, this section attempts to illustrate the various ways
one can understand the origins of gender inequality. It is critical to recog-
nize that no one level of analysis alone can explain the complexity of
gender inequity, but that each theoretical approach allows one to under-
stand a particular part of a multidimensional and complex social problem.
Risman (2004) argues that theories that locate gender only at the indi-
vidual, interactional, or organizational level are at risk of oversimplifying
the complexities of gender. In response, she developed her theory of
gender as a social structure and synthesized the existing scholarship into
a multilevel framework to better understand how the aforementioned
approaches interlock.
Risman employed the same dimensions outlined above (individual,
interactionist, and organizational) in the theory, noting that material and
cultural processes operate to create gender difference in each dimension.
Scarborough and Risman (2018) explain:
Material processes are based upon physical bodies, laws, or geographical
locations and how these impact social lives. Cultural processes are ideolog-
ical or socially constructed notions that orientate people’s perspectives and
worldviews. Each component of the gender structure is mutually consti-
tutive and reflexive, such that the material forces in the interactional-level
influence and are influenced by the cultural forces in the interactional-
level. Similarly, each dimension, the individual, interactional, and macro
[organizational], is interconnected with the other dimensions. A change
in one dimension reverberates across other dimensions to alter the gender
structure of the whole. (p. 347)
An example that illustrates the interlocking nature of the dimensions that
produce inequality are innovations in STEM training opportunities for
women. At the macro-level, educational initiatives are developed by non-
profits that encourage young women to learn science and math skills that
can ultimately influence the individual preferences of young women who
later might pursue employment in STEM fields. However, “the potential
56 E. M. ARCHER
for change inspired by such macro and individual processes could ulti-
mately be stunted by interactional processes — as women who study or
work in STEM fields often face discrimination and alienation by their
colleagues, increasing the chance that they will leave the field for one
that is less hostile toward women” (Risman, 2018). One can begin to
understand the dynamic patterns of change—both toward gender equity
and resisting it—when gender is conceptualized in a multidimensional
framework.
Case Study: Cumulative Disadvantage at Work
The mechanisms of perpetuating gender inequality discussed in the
previous section apply to every domain of American life, from navigating
male dominated industries to negotiating gender equity in the home.
Gender roles and stereotypes that we are brought up with (socialization)
inform our beliefs about the characteristics women and men possess and
the positions for which they are best suited, which leads to bias. Biases,
or errors in decision-making that are based on stereotypes, contribute
to the inequities in the workplace. More specifically, implicit biases about
gender can affect each stage of a woman’s career and is the case study used
here to illustrate the power of gender stereotypes in producing inequities
between men and women. The process of cumulative disadvantage is one
way to explain why women consistently, across industries, are passed over
for promotion and why the gender wage gap is so stubborn.
Inequalities in the workplace are often a product of social processes
rather than a natural difference between men and women. The theory of
cumulative disadvantage illustrates that inequalities like the gender wage
and wealth gap are attributed to a series of small setbacks that unfold
over the course of one’s career. Tower and Latimer (2016) suggest that
“early career disadvantages can compound over time, resulting in impor-
tant disparities in career advancement, compensation, and opportunities.”
Unconscious bias and stereotypes about women and their capabilities
are responsible for these setbacks as these biases can creep in and influ-
ence critical workplace decisions about who gets promoted, who collects
a bonus, and who gets assigned a top project. Recall that men are
usually associated with “agentic” traits like ambition and control, whereas
women are associated with “communal” traits (helpful and supportive).
Communal traits are seen as antithetical to good leadership and will
inform our conscious and unconscious assumptions about people. Implicit
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 57
bias informs choices made at the interview stage, in team interactions
and performance assessments, whether someone receives a prestigious
assignment, and ultimately, compensation.
At the interviewing and hiring stage, what researchers find is not only
are women held to a higher standard than men but even when the
standards are higher, occupational segregation starts. Women will make
it through the hiring process in the technology industry, for example,
and then “can find themselves steered out of technical roles and into
careers such as marketing, human resources and project management,
which often pay less and may not have the same potential for advance-
ment” (Bianco, 2017). Marketing and project management roles track
more closely to cultural stereotypes about women’s work whereas engi-
neering and technology are consistent with what we might expect among
the skillset of men. In this instance, technology companies place women
on a certain track at the point of entry; this is the gender segregation
of labor that also results in more women in lower paying jobs in many
organizations.
After being hired, individuals engage in team interactions where
women can contribute their ideas, knowledge and expertise to influence
the choices that are made and improve processes.
Research shows that women have a much harder time getting credit for
their work and ideas in team interactions than their male peers (Haynes
& Heilman, 2013; Heilman, 2016). These moments of inequality affect
how individuals are perceived for their contributions and expertise in the
workplace and if they will be promoted over time. Likewise, in the perfor-
mance assessment and promotion phase, women were significantly more
likely to be in the middle of the performance range when managers evalu-
ated their team members (Cecchi-Dimeglio, 2017). Men were more likely
to be placed at the top rung of performance as compared to women.
Correll and Simard (2016) also found “women are systematically less
likely to receive specific feedback tied to outcomes, both when they
receive praise and when the feedback is developmental.” In other words,
men are offered more specific guidance of what is needed to improve
and get to the next level. If women are more likely to be perceived as
middling when it comes to performance and given vague feedback for
which it is impossible to respond, they are unlikely to be rewarded with
special assignments or bonuses.
Another factor in cumulative disadvantage lies in the kind of work
women are assigned. Due to gender role expectations, women have an
58 E. M. ARCHER
extra burden because they are expected to be collaborative and warm.
Women often get tasked with a specific assignment that is important to
the well-being of the organization but does not lead to promotion. In the
domain of academia, Misra, Lundquist, Holmes, and Agiomavritis (2011)
find that female faculty members spent on average eight hours more a
week on service activities (e.g., mentoring, teaching, committee work)
than their male counterparts. As a consequence, female faculty spent less
time on research, which is the criterion that was most determinant of a
promotion.
The cumulative disadvantage terminal point for women is compen-
sation—what they are paid for their work annually. All of the pervious
points of contact affect compensation. If female applicants are channeled
into lower paying positions by human resource offices, they will never
have the earning power of their male colleagues. If they are not cred-
ited for their ideas or seen as influential on teams, it is unlikely that they
will receive lucrative assignments. And it follows that if evaluators do not
give female employees concrete feedback from which to respond, their
ascent up the proverbial ladder will be slower. In order to further narrow
the wage gap, organizations must do better about thinking through all
of the points where bias introduces itself that affects the difference in
compensation between men and women over the course of a career.
Conclusion
This chapter has illustrated that gender-based inequality is alive and
well in modern American society. In almost ever y industry and sphere,
women are at a disadvantage compared to men. The disadvantages felt
by women—lower salaries and savings, more hours spent on maintaining
the home, and biases that thwart their ascent to leadership positions—
are predicated on gender stereotypes that are embedded in the society
and structures in which we live and operate. Similar to racial categories,
gender is a categorical form of inequality that is founded on an individu-
al’s membership in a group (i.e., men and women) and these “categorical
inequalities in a society are created and sustained by embedding [cate-
gorical] membership…in systems of control over material resources and
power” (Ridgeway, 2011). Theoretical approaches from sociology and
social psychology illustrate how these inequities are created (socializa-
tion) and sustained over time (theory of gender as social structure).
In the context of male-dominated industries like STEM, men generally
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 59
control most stages of career development in their organizations—from
finding talent through their own networks, to assigning employees to
teams where they can contribute, and deciding at what point women are
promoted if their performance warrants such a reward—which may result
in fewer wages, rewards, and advancement at each step when compared
to their male peers. This cumulative disadvantage makes entry and career
satisfaction harder for women in these fields, potentially pushing women
out of these industries and sustaining low representation among women.
The solutions to gender-based inequities are complex and require a multi-
faceted approach. Beliefs and norms about what behaviors are appropriate
for men and women will need to loosen and evidence suggests that this
systemic change is very slow (Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, 2016). Organi-
zations will also have to make policy changes that put men and women
on a more equal footing—for example, paid family leave policies that
give men and women the same time home with a new family member
will normalize equal caretaking responsibilities among parents. Culture
change and shifts in societal expectations around gender roles are slow
moving, but gender equity is possible if individuals are cognizant of their
biases and how they might impact their beliefs about and evaluations of
women in the workplace.
Chapter Takeaways
The five key ideas for this chapter are:
1. While gender-based inequality has improved over the last century, it
persists across multiple institutions (education, employment, family,
politics, and law).
2. Theories explaining the mechanisms of gender inequality are orga-
nized into three categories: (1) individual, (2) interactional, and (3)
structural.
3. Theories that locate gender only at the individual, interactional, or
organizational level are at risk of oversimplifying the complexities
of gender. Risman’s theory of gender as a social structure shows
how the 3 approaches interlock to create a multilevel framework of
gender.
4. Intersecting systems of oppression (e.g., racial, socio-economic
status, and gender) can exacerbate inequalities for women.
60 E. M. ARCHER
5. Implicit biases that are informed by gender stereotypes create cumu-
lative disadvantage that women experience over their careers and
contributes to the gender wage gap.
Three major conclusions can be drawn from this chapter:
1. Gender stereotypes that are used to describe men and women’s
behavior, and the unconscious application of gendered stereotypes
in decision-making has real consequences for women.
2. Theories drawn from sociology and social psychology provide
a vocabulary and explanatory framework for how gender-based
inequities persist over time.
3. Combatting unconscious bias in American society is difficult, but
possible. Men and women can more intentionally understand their
biases as they relate to gender and other socially constructed cate-
gories (e.g.‚ race, sexuality) so they are able to resist the traps of
stereotypes.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.
Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.
Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality.
New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Berger, J., Conner, T., & Fisek, H. (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical
research program. Cambridge: Winthrop.
Bianco, M. (2017). Finding solutions to the gender pay gap in tech. The Clayman
Institute of Gender Research, Stanford University. https://gender.stanford.
edu/news-publications/gender-news/finding-solutions-gender-pay-gap-tech.
Budig, M. (2014). The fatherhood bonus & the motherhood penalty: Parent-
hood and the gender gap in pay. The Third Way.https://www.west-info.eu/
children-boost-fathers-career-but-damage-mothers/next_-_fatherhood_moth
erhood/.
Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in
phenomenology and feminist theory. Theater Journal, 40(4), 519–531.
Cecchi-Dimeglio, P. (2017). How gender bias corrupts performance reviews, and
what to do about it. Harvard Business Review.https://hbr.org/2017/04/
how-gender-bias-corrupts-performance-reviews-and-what-to-do-about-it.
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 61
Center for American Women in Politics. (2020). Women in statewide elective
executive office 2020 factsheet. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-statewide-elective-executive-office-2020.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the
sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking
the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859.
Connley, C. (2019, May 16). The number of women running Fortune 500
companies is at a record high. CNBC.https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/
16/the-number-of-women-running-fortune-500-companies-is-at-a-record-
high.html.
Corrado, C. (2009). Gender identities and socialization. In J. O’Brien (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of gender and society (Vol. 1, pp. 356–363). New York: Sage.
Correll, S. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased
self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730.
Correll, S., & Simard, C. (2016, April 29). Research: Vague feedback is holding
women back. Harvard Business Review.https://hbr.org/2016/04/research-
vague-feedback-is-holding-women-back.
Ferree, M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(4), 866–884.
Geiger, A., & Parker, K. (2018, March 15). For women’s history month,
a look at gender gains – and gaps – in the U.S. Pew Research
Center.https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/15/for-womens-
history-month-a-look-at-gender-gains-and-gaps-in-the-u-s/.
Graf, N., Brown, A., & Patten, E. (2019). The narrowing, but persistent, gender
gap in pay. Pew Research Center.https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/
2019/03/22/gender-pay-gap-facts/.
Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing …
or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353–363.
Harvey-Wingfield, A. (2009). Racializing the glass escalator: Reconsidering
men’s experiences with women’s work. Gender & Society, 23(1), 5–26.
Haynes, M. C., & Heilman, M. E. (2013). It had to be you (not me)!: Women’s
attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful joint work
outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 956–969.
Hegewisch, A., & Hartmann, H. (2019, March 7). The gender wage gap:
2018 Earnings differences by race and ethnicity. Institute for Women’s Policy
Research.https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-2018/.
Heilman, M. E. (2016, March 14). What working women can do when they
don’t get Credit for collaboration. Quartz.https://qz.com/638286/the-pra
ctical-steps-working-women-can-take-to-get-credit-when-its-due/.
62 E. M. ARCHER
Horowitz, J., Parker, K., & Stepler, R. (2017, October 18). Wide partisan gaps
in U.S. over how far the country has come on gender equality. Pew Research
Center.https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/15/for-womens-
history-month-a-look-at-gender-gains-and-gaps-in-the-u-s/.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kirby, M. (1999) Theories of gender inequality (Chapter 7). In Stratification
and differentiation. Skills-based sociology. London: Palgrave.
Kroska, A. (2014) The social psychology of gender inequality. In J. McLeod, E.
Lawler, & M. Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality.
Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Levs, J. (2019, March 11). Why paternity leave is needed to promote gender
equality. Strategy & Business .https://www.strategy-business.com/article/
Why-paternity-leave-is-needed-to-promote-gender-equality?gko=ab6b8.
Lopata, H., & Thorne, B. (1978). One the term “sex roles”. Signs, 3(3), 718–
721.
Martin, K. (1998). Becoming a gendered body: Practices in preschools. Amer-
ican Sociological Review, 63(4), 494–511.
Maume, D. (2008). Gender differences in providing urgent childcare Among
dual-earner parents. Social Forces, 87 (1), 273–297.
McCulloch, H. (2017). Closing the women’s wealth gap: What it is. Why it
matters, and what can be done about it. https://womenswealthgap.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/Closing-the-Womens-Wealth-Gap-Report-Jan
2017.pdf.
Miller, C. (2014, September 6). The motherhood penalty vs. the fatherhood
bonus. The New York Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/ups
hot/a-child-helps-your-career-if-youre-a-man.html.
Misra, J., Lundquist, J., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The
ivory ceiling of service work. American Association of University Profes-
sors.https://www.aaup.org/article/ivory-ceiling-service-work?wbc_purpose=
basic&WBCMODE=presentationunpublished#.XrHnMZNKjFw.
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: The Free Press.
National Partnership for Women & Families. (2020). Quantifying America’s
gender wage gap by race/ethnicity.https://www.nationalpartnership.org/
our-work/resources/economic-justice/fair-pay/quantifying-americas-gender-
wage-gap.pdf.
National Science Board. (2018, January). Chapter 2: Higher education in science
and engineering. In Science & engineering indicators. https://nsf.gov/sta
tistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/higher-education-in-science-and-
engineering/undergraduate-education-enrollment-and-degrees-in-the-united-
states.
Phillips, C. (2020, March 8). To close the wealth gap for women of color,
business can take the lead. The Boston Globe.https://www.bostonglobe.
com/2020/03/08/opinion/close-wealth-gap-women-color-business-can-
take-lead/.
3 GENDER-BASED INEQUALITY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY 63
Rehel, E. (2014). When dad stays home too: Paternity leave, gender, and
parenting. Gender & Society, 28(1), 110–132.
Ridgeway, C. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the
modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Risman, B. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism.
Gender & Society, 18, 429–450.
Risman, B. (2018). Gender matters: Bringing in a gender structure analysis.
A comment on “paternal and maternal gatekeeping? Choreographing care-
giving in families” by Tina Miller and “rethinking family socialization to
gender through the lens of multi-local, post-separation families” by Laura
Merla. Sociologica, 12(3), 67–74.
Rossin-Slater, M., & Stearns, J. (2020, February 18). The economic imperative
of enacting paid family leave across the United States. Washington Center
of Equitable Justice. https://equitablegrowth.org/the-economic-imperative-
of-enacting-paid-family-leave-across-the-united-states/.
Scarborough, W., & Risman, B. (2018). Gender Inequality. In A. Treviño
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of social problems (pp. 339–362). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tower, L. E., & Latimer, M. (2016). Cumulative disadvantage: Effects of early
career childcare issues on faculty research travel. Affilia, 31(3), 317–330.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2017). Paternity leave: Why parental leave for
fathers is so important for Working families.https://www.dol.gov/sites/dol
gov/files/OASP/legacy/files/PaternityBrief.pdf.
Washington Center for Equitable Growth. (2017). Occupational segregation in
the United States.https://equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/
09/092717-occupational-seg.pdf.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2),
125–151.
Wezerek, G., & Ghodsee, K. (2020, March 5). Women’s unpaid labor is worth
$10,900,000,000,000. The New York Times.https://www.nytimes.com/int
eractive/2020/03/04/opinion/women-unpaid-labor.html.
Williams, C. L., Muller, C., & Kilanski, K. (2012). Gendered organizations in
the new economy. Gender & Society, 26 (4), 549–573.
Williams, J. (2001). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what
to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.
PART II
Contemporary Gender-Based Issues
CHAPTER 4
Gender and Communication: Are There
Decisive Differences?
Mercedes Coffman and Joan Marques
Introduction
Communication can be defined in a few words, but comprises a gamut
of nuances that are hard to capture in one mere sentence. To start
with a generic definition, communication is “a process by which infor-
mation is exchanged between individuals through a common system of
symbols, signs, or behavior” (Communication, 2020). Petkeviciute and
Streimikiene (2017) point out that, aside from a process of information
exchange in multiple environments and through myriad means, commu-
nication should also be considered from the perspectives of both, the
sender and the receiver. For each of the constituents, the process requires
several sequential processes such as encoding and decoding, which brings
along the process of interpretation. In addition, communication can be
manifested through multiple modes, such as linear, cyclic, triangular, or
spiral.
M. Coffman ·J. Marques (B)
Woodbury University, Burbank, CA, USA
e-mail: Joan.Marques@woodbury.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_4
67
68 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
In their analysis on the origins of sex differences in human behavior,
Eagly and Wood (1999) associate men with characteristics of power,
success, achievement, leadership and control, while they link women with
emotions, relationships, and communication. Interestingly, communica-
tion is generally considered to be a core aspect in leadership, even though
the connection between communication and leadership is not always
explicit (Cunningham, Hazel, & Hayes, 2020). While some sources
may describe communication as a transactional process in leadership
behavior—where leaders use communication to accomplish their goals—it
is becoming more apparent that communication also works transforma-
tional, as it can serve communal goals, and address as well as resolve social
challenges such as “political discourse, political unrest, persistent social
inequalities, and uncertainty brought on by new realities such as climate
change” (Cunningham et al., 2020, p. 23).
The mere way communication is perceived, and the weight it gets
assigned, differs based on professions. Bloksgaard, Fekjær, and Møberg
(2020) for instance, find that, while many police recruits in Scandinavia
don’t agree on stereotypes of men being more competent at handling
violence and women being better with care and communication, there is
still a decent percentage that believes the stereotypes have merit.
Communication and Gender
The next section of this chapter will discuss some gender-influenced
communication modes and a number of perceived stereotypes, as
explained by multiple scholars over the past decades. A stereotype is
a representation of a social group that accentuates a characteristic or
a set of characteristics, which may give rise to a uniform impression
of that group (Moriarty, Mitchell, & Wells, 2009). Stereotypes entail
simplified symbols, accepted by large parts of a community, influencing
the way members of social groups are perceived (Gauntlett, 2002). As
for gender stereotypes, Browne (1998) describes these as general beliefs
about specific qualities and roles attributed to psychological characteris-
tics and behaviors of men and women. Kotzaivazoglou, Hatzithomas, and
Tsichla (2018) add a caveat that we should be mindful about the concept
and context of gender, as this is an organic process. In other words, with
the changing implementations of masculinity and femininity, gender roles
may shift.
4 GENDER AND COMMUNICATION: ARE THERE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES? 69
When considering communication within the scope of gender, we find
that there have been differences registered in the way men and women
process information, apply emotional intelligence, display leadership traits,
use skills, and interpret communication (Jones et al., 2018). Pearson
(1981) presented the terms masculine rhetoric versus feminine rhetoric,
with the first one being decisive, direct, rational, authoritative, logical,
aggressive, and impersonal, and the second being cautious, receptive,
indirect, emotional, conciliatory, subjective, and polite (Baker, 1991).
Several other resources (Leaper, 1991;Maltz&Borker,1982; Wood,
2009) have confirmed that women are more prone to use communica-
tion as a relationship instrument with other people, while men focus their
communication more on dominance and power exertion, and outcome
expectations. Augustahealth.com (2017) discussed gender differences
pertaining to verbal centers and memory. It states that “female brains
have verbal centers in both hemispheres with more connections between
words, memories, and feelings, while male brains tend to only have verbal
centers in the left hemisphere with fewer connections between words,
memories, and feelings.” Although this may lead to the assumptions that
women use more words than men, it could also offer insights into the
lack of confidence and competitiveness women may exhibit in the work-
place. Since women have more connections between memory, feelings,
and words, they may be more inhibited due to more vivid memories
of past failures, consideration of potential failures, and over analysis and
calculation of risks. Based on their research, Jones et al. (2018) observed
that women seem to be more detailed and apologetic, while men get to
the point more directly; women use communication to develop relation-
ships and focus on the needs of others, while men are more geared toward
giving rise to an impression of confidence.
The following two interesting side notes on gender communica-
tion styles may provide some insights in how these styles translate in
professional success.
1. Juodvalkis, Grefe, Hogue, Svyantek, and DeLamarter (2003) found
that men with dominate communication styles were more likely to
be hired over comparable female applicants. The cause for this to
happen may have its foundation in the very structure of job inter-
views, where problem-solving skills are high on the priority list,
thus skewing the balance in favor of the direct and authoritarian
communication styles of men.
70 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
2. Lammers and Gast (2017) found that today’s era, promoting “soft
skills” as most desirable and effective, and with that, a more femi-
nistic communication style, still does not propel more women
into leadership positions. At the same time that female, people-
centered leadership skills, such as empathy, communication, and
emotional intelligence, are encouraged in corporate suites, there
seems to be an undermining campaign toward affirmative action
which includes hiring more women at the C-level. Several studies
have found that the expected increase of women in leadership posi-
tions due to harboring the right skills has created renewed efforts to
sustain gender inequality, indicating that even positive stereotypes
confirming that women are particularly well qualified for leadership
can hurt them in their ascent to top positions (Lammers & Gast,
2017).
Gender and Virtual Communication
Jones et al. (2018) noted that communication styles don’t significantly
change through communication platforms. In online communication,
these authors have noted the stereotypical divergence, with women
frequently coming across as politer and more appreciative than men, and
being more concerned about care-related issues, while men seem to be
more focused on bring about change. An interesting, related finding
came from Baruh, Chisik, Bisson, and ¸Senova (2014), who discovered
that greater online information disclosure from males was perceived in
a more positive light, and led to greater connectivity desires, while this
was the other way around with females: the more information they
disclosed about themselves, the less attractive they seemed to come across.
Baruh et al. presented the potential explanation that conventional gender
perspectives may be foundational here, with males being considered the
action oriented ones, taking more initiatives, while females are considered
to be more reserved and discreet.
Gender and Nonverbal Communication
Gender influences are also registered in nonverbal communication. In
several societies, males are depicted as aggressive, controlling, and having
a take-charge attitude, while females are perceived as sensitive, emotional,
and passive (Phutela, 2015).
4 GENDER AND COMMUNICATION: ARE THERE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES? 71
Women are more expressive when they use non-verbal communication;
they tend to smile more than men and use their hands more. Men are less
likely to make eye contact like women. Men also come off as more relaxed,
while women seem tenser. Men are more comfortable with close prox-
imity to females, but women are more comfortable with close proximity
with other females. In terms of interpreting non-verbal signals, women are
better than men. (Phutela, 2015, pp. 46–47)
Crowley and Knowles (2014) largely concur with the above by
affirming that there are lower expectations for women to regulate their
emotions in social settings as there are for man, because women are
often trained from an early age to avoid conflict and communicate in
an overtly pleasant and agreeable manner. These authors also agree that
smiling is more expected from women than from men, pointing out that
a smile is sometimes perceived as a token of appeasement from those
with less power. Conversely, Crowley and Knowles (2014) underscore
that there is a higher expectation for men to show aggressive behavior,
such as anger and contempt, since society seems to consider these nega-
tive emotions more appropriate for men Bringing these behavioral cues
within the realm of mental health, Crowley and Knowles posit that men
more often express negative emotions but also experience higher levels
of violent behavior, while women more often suppress negative emotions
yet experience higher levels of passive-aggressive behavior.
Gender and Information Processing
In regard to the processing of information, Chua and Murray (2015)
highlight some differences that can be useful in optimizing the effec-
tiveness of intra-organizational communications. The research of these
scholars yielded that men appear to respond best to messages that are
thematic, containing attribute-based features that emphasize the distinc-
tive characteristics of a product, while women appear to prefer adver-
tisements that are detailed, descriptive and have a tendency to compare
products. Goldman (2017) states that a woman’s hippocampus, critical to
learning and memorization, is larger than a man’s and works differently.
This may offer insights into why women prefer more detailed commu-
nication styles as it is more easily stores into learning and memory parts
of the brain. Men, as stated by Goldman tend to have a larger amygdala,
72 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
which is associated with the experiencing of emotions and the recollec-
tion of such experiences. This may also offer insights into why men take
more risks than women. In work environments this could lead to the
recommendation that women may prefer leaders that are highly detailed
in their communication, while men may prefer short communications
that highlight the areas of importance and how the information concerns
them.
It seems, however, that the aging process mellows many of the gender-
based communication discrepancies. In a study comprising 153 men
and 151 women over the age of 40 focusing on sex differences in the
communication values of mature adults and what the possible influence of
psychological gender (masculinity versus femininity) was therein, MacGe-
orge, Feng, and Butler (2003) found that older men and women value
affective and instrumental communication skills to a ver y similar degree.
The main significance in divergence that these scholars found was that
women placed somewhat more value than men on conflict management
and comforting skill, while men placed somewhat more value than women
on persuasive skill.
Considering Gender Communication Differences
In the sections above, a range of gender-based communication perspec-
tives were shared, including differences. The general consensus seems
to be that the following are some of the most frequently mentioned
differences in gender communication: (1) women are more vocal than
men; (2) women are more verbally skilled than men; (3) men are more
action oriented in their use of language, while women are more rela-
tionship oriented; (4) Men are more competitive in their language use,
while women are more cooperative; and (5) the above differences lead
to regular communication frictions between men and women (Cameron,
2007). Some other communication differences often highlighted are, that
men mainly communicate to support their prominence, while women do
so to build relationships; men smile less than women, women use more
paralanguage (nonverbal indicators of listening and understanding) than
men do; men will use communicative touching more to confirm their
dominance (pat on the back or shoulder), while women will touch for
connection (arm-touching or offering a hug), and women use more eye
contact than men (Admin/Public Relations …, 2017).
4 GENDER AND COMMUNICATION: ARE THERE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES? 73
It needs to be underscored here that stereotypes are not always
congruent with reality, as there will be many members from each gender
who cannot identify with the stereotypes their group has been ascribed to.
Additionally, as pointed out earlier in this chapter, gender expectations
and implementations change over time, meaning that even stereotypes
have a dynamic nature and change over time. Let us now review the
above-listed stereotypes and reflect on their legitimacy in modern society.
Are Women More Vocal Than Men?
Taking the persistent claim that women talk more than men into consid-
eration, Hammond (2013) reviewed multiple sources over time on this
subject, and found that there is no consistency in findings, and that the
allegation is therefore not validated. Referring to a long-standing and
often repeated allegation that women express an average of 20,000 words
a day, while men only utter about 7,000, Hammond discussed a wide
range of studies made of children (boys versus girls) and adults (men
versus women) and reported that, while in some studies the female cohort
did express some more words than the male cohort, the differences were
fairly insignificant. Yet, she also presented a series of findings in which
men were the bigger talkers. Aponte (2019) draws a similar conclusion
and warns for falling prey to holding on to stereotypes that may turn
out to be unsubstantiated and harmful to some. Roeder (2014) specifies
that women may speak more when in larger groups, but in general the
talk volume is determined by contexts, and can therefore not explicitly be
attributed to men or women.
Are Women More Verbally Skilled Than Men?
Swaminathan (2008) took a deeper look into this stereotypical assertion,
and found that it is factual. There is also a scientifically proven reason for
this to be, since girls seem to display greater brain activity when tapping
into their linguistic skills than boys. Boys seem to need more illustra-
tive assistance in learning language than girls, while girls have a greater
ability to spell and determine the meaning of words, resulting in greater
language accuracy.
While the verdict is not completely out, there have been scientific
conversations about testosterone being a potential instigator of poorer
verbal skills in men. Tests with transgender men have shown that their
74 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
verbal skills diminished during the testosterone intake process, but this
finding has so far been refuted as unsubstantial. While neuroscientists and
psychiatrists are still debating whether there is a difference between male
brains and female brains, with some confirming and others discounting it,
Barclay (2015) concludes that more studies will be needed to solidify this
assertion. In an article debunking several gender stereotypes, Fulbright
(2011) admits that a wide range of studies show a moderate advantage of
women over men in this regard, but also asserts that there has been very
little difference found in reading comprehension, vocabulary, and verbal
reasoning between the genders.
Are Men More Action-Oriented and Women More
Relationship-Oriented in Their Language Use?
In a study among Iranian graduate students (male and female), Pakza-
dian and Tootkaboni (2018) found that women showed more acceptance
and facilitation in conversations, while men demonstrated a more assertive
mode, and used different strategies such as interruption, topical changes,
criticizing, and engaging conflict to establish or maintain their conversa-
tional dominance. One may take into consideration the cultural influences
in a male domineering society that may have skewed the findings of this
study. In a 2005 study University of California, Irvine, gathered findings
that “men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter, while
women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter.” Gray matter
allows for more task-focused actions, while white matter allows for easier
multitasking. These finding may explain while men are more drawn to
business-oriented fields with a compartmentalized focus, while women
tend to operate from a broader focus when considering choices and
behavioral actions (Intelligence in Men and Women…, 2005). In a senior
thesis at Claremont Colleges, Merchant (2012) cites several authors to
support her statement, “[o]verall, women are expected to use commu-
nication to enhance social connections and relationships, while men use
language to enhance social dominance” (p. 17). Women have utilized the
“tend and befriend” communication style for centuries. Women commu-
nicate to strengthen relationship bonds, while men communicate to solve
problems. To balance out this stereotype, Ni (2020) points out that
masculine and feminine communication styles are not gender-specific, and
that there are both men and women adhering to masculine and feminine
4 GENDER AND COMMUNICATION: ARE THERE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES? 75
styles. Ni stresses that regardless of one’s gender it is best to be comfort-
able with both, feminine and masculine styles of communication. Upon
clarifying this important side note, Ni (2020) lists the masculine commu-
nication style as power-oriented, self-geared, verbally dominant, action,
goal and issue focused, and the feminine style as relation and human-
connection oriented, inquisitive and focused on others, affirming, mindful
toward others’ emotions, and humane. Addressing some weaknesses of
each style, Ni (2020) emphasizes that the masculine style may be consid-
ered destructive to relationships, cause separation and isolation, may seem
narcissistic, and disconnected from genuine emotions, while the feminine
style could be seen as self-sacrificing, repressive of own wants, needs and
feelings, subject to becoming dominated, and losing a sense of true self.
Are Men More Competitive and Women More Cooperative in Their
Language Use?
The Harvard Women and Public Policy Program created an online
Gender Action Portal, in which it confirmed study findings that men are
more competitive than women. The portal posits that, while gender-based
behavioral differences are factual in childhood, puberty, and adulthood,
the stereotypes are perpetuated in the professional realm through a mix
of discrimination and job preferences among women, based on require-
ments. This, then, may be the foundational factor behind why there are
only 2.5% of the highest paid US executives being women. The Portal
further explains that women may turn away from the long hours that
executive jobs require, while they may also be turned off by the high
degree of competition needed to succeed in such positions. (Harvard
Kennedy School, 2019). Sharing the study findings, the Portal highlights
that, while women hold the ability to be equally competitive as men, they
often deliberately turn away from competitive choices.
The above perspective is verified by Niederle and Vesterlund (2011),
who also found that women, while equally capable, often differ in will-
ingness to compete. Niederle and Vesterlund add that part of this trend
may be attributed to the fact that, aside from a greater passion for compe-
tition, men tend to have more confidence in their abilities than women.
The above affirmation does not clarify whether the lesser degree of will-
ingness could be related to childrearing, and gender role stereotypes and
whether the assertion also applies to unmarried, childless women.
76 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
Is There a Difference in Communication Philosophy Between Men
and Women?
In an insightful article, Kinsey Goman (2016) reiterates several of
the earlier made points about gender related ways of communicating.
She considers verbal and nonverbal communication cues, and high-
lights strengths and weaknesses of each. Females, she asserts, focus
their communication on reading body language, listening, and displaying
empathy, while men have a more commanding physical presence, are
more to the point, and know how to display power. Referring to the
weaknesses in their communication, Kinsey Goman (2016) warns that
women may come across as overly emotional, not getting to the point,
and unauthoritative, while men risk the chance of making an overly blunt,
insensitive, and too self-assured impression. Also similar to earlier cited
authors, Mohindra and Azhar (2012) link gender communication differ-
ences to the ways the sexes are generally raised, with girls often being
taught to “use their manners, play quietly, and be ladylike,” and boys
being allowed to “use rough language, play loudly, and be rambunctious”
(p. 18). In line with other authors, Kinsey Goman alerts us that in work
environments we need an appropriate balance of the masculine and femi-
nine style to be considered positively. The trick is, that there is no recipe
for this balance, as it will be determined by circumstances, needs, and
audiences.
Do Women Smile More Than Men?
In a 2017 article,McDuffetal.statedthatwomenareknowntoexag-
gerate their facial expressions more, resulting in them laughing more
often. McDuff et al. found, from a study with 708 males and 863 females,
that a higher percentage of the participating women smiled more and
often longer than the male participants.
Do Men and Women Touch in Communication for Different Reasons?
Touching is a form of nonverbal communication that varies based on
individuals’ aggression, comfort, sympathy, and love. At best, this way
of communicating can be called ambiguous, as it varies, even between
the genders (Major, 1981). DiBiase and Gunnoe (2004) add culture
and age to the parameters that determine the degree and application
4 GENDER AND COMMUNICATION: ARE THERE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES? 77
of communicative touching. When considering human interactions, it
becomes apparent that touching is more widely accepted when initiated
by a person with a higher status toward one with lower rank, such as
manager with employee, doctor with nurse or customer with waitress
(Major, 1981). Henley (1977) posits that nonreciprocal touch is asso-
ciated with power, may represent the balance of power in a relationship,
and can serve as a cue symbolic of power. Since most C-level positions,
till date, are held by males, this type of touching, represented by pats
on the back or touching shoulders, have been predominantly assigned
to men, leading to the general impression that men professionally touch
to confirm their dominance, while women, often in less powerful posi-
tions, and attributed with greater expressiveness of emotions such as
empathy and interest, touch for connection. Henley (1973) confirms the
above by stating that the frequently occurring status difference (in work
settings), gives men a touching privilege, which, in turn, contributes to
their domination of women. DiBiase and Gunnoe (2004) add that men
are more prone to touch with their hands, while women touch more
with other body parts. These authors also caution that touching patterns
should not be generalized without caution, as male and female touching
patterns are not universal, so they are unlikely to be the result of biological
predispositions only (Fig. 4.1).
Addressing Gender Communication
Patterns in Contemporary Times
As several authors cited in this chapter have indicated, gender stereo-
typing is complicated due to the ever-changing nature of humans and
the ways they behave within and perceive genders. As social dynamics
change, and certain professions and behaviors become more accepted
across genders, stereotyping may increasingly gain the reputation of a
slippery slope. Other important contributors to the fading stereotypes
may be the changing ways boys and girls are raised, with deliberately less
emphasis on their gender, while cultural aspects may also become diluted
in our increasingly interconnected world with growing exposure through
social and other media.
As has also been mentioned in this chapter, there is still debate among
various streams of scientists about the issue of brain differences between
males and females, with some sources claiming that there is no such
thing as a male or a female brain, and others vehemently defending the
78 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
Fig. 4.1 Overview of the gender communication differences discussed
divergences in, for instance, the uses of language skills, and sensitivity
awareness.
It is, indeed, not an easy task to discern where certain communication
trends originate from, and the most acceptable answer to this ques-
tion may be that we will learn more as cultural, social, and professional
dynamics shift.
We may consider ourselves fortunate that contemporary times dilute
many of the gender stereotypes, thus reducing the opportunity to nurture
biases toward behaviors of men and women. That said, it is critical to end
this chapter with the cautionary statement that the magnitude of “typical”
gender assigned behaviors remain at the individual level, and will continue
to be applied or defied as such.
4 GENDER AND COMMUNICATION: ARE THERE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES? 79
Chapter Takeaways
•Several sources relate males with characteristics of power, success,
achievement, leadership and control, and females with emotions,
relationships, and communication.
•The way communication modes are accepted among male and
female counterparts is often influenced by factors such as upbringing,
culture, and work environments.
•We should be mindful about the concept and context of gender,
as this is an organic process. With the changing implementations of
masculinity and femininity, gender roles are shifting.
•Several resources have confirmed that women are more prone to use
communication as a relationship instrument with other people, while
men focus their communication more on dominance and power
exertion, and outcome expectations.
•Communication styles don’t significantly change through commu-
nication platforms. In online communication, women frequently
coming across as politer and more appreciative, while men seem to
be more focused on bring about change.
•Gender influences are also registered in nonverbal communication.
In several societies, males are depicted as aggressive, controlling,
and having a take-charge attitude, while females are perceived as
sensitive, emotional, and passive.
•In regard to the processing of information, women may prefer
leaders that are highly detailed in their communication, while men
may prefer short communications that highlight the areas of impor-
tance and how the information concerns them.
•Addressing some commonly listed differences in gender communi-
cation:
–Are women more vocal than men? There is no clear evidence
that such is the case. Much of the talk volume is determined by
contexts, and can therefore not explicitly be attributed to men
or women.
–Are women more verbally skilled than men? While the verdict is
not completely out, a wide range of studies show a moderate
advantage of women over men in this regard, but also asserts
that there has been very little difference found in reading
comprehension, vocabulary, and verbal reasoning between the
genders.
80 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
–Are men more action-oriented and women more relationship-
oriented in their language use? Masculine and feminine commu-
nication styles are not gender-specific. There are both men and
women adhering to masculine and feminine styles. Regardless
of one’s gender it is best to be comfortable with both, feminine
and masculine styles of communication.
–Are men more competitive and women more cooperative in their
language use? Studies have found that men are more competi-
tive than women. The stereotypes infused in the raising process
are often perpetuated in the professional realm through a mix
of discrimination and job preferences among women, based
on requirements. While women hold the ability to be equally
competitive as men, they often deliberately turn away from
competitive choices.
–Is there a difference in communication philosophy between men
and women? Females generally focus their communication on
reading body language, listening, and displaying empathy, while
men have a more commanding physical presence, are more to
the point, and know how to display power. In work environ-
ments we need an appropriate balance of the masculine and
feminine style to be considered positively. There is no recipe
for this balance. It will be determined by circumstances, needs,
and audiences.
–Do women smile more than men? Studies found that a higher
percentage of women smile more and often longer than their
male participants.
–Do men and women touch in communication for different
reasons? Touching is more widely accepted when initiated by a
person with a higher status toward one with lower rank. Since
most C-level positions, till date, are held by males, this type of
touching, represented by pats on the back or touching shoul-
ders, have been predominantly assigned to men, leading to the
general impression that men professionally touch to confirm
their dominance, while women, often in less powerful posi-
tions, and attributed with greater expressiveness of emotions
such as empathy and interest, touch for connection. However,
touching patterns should not be generalized without caution,
as male and female touching patterns are not universal, so they
are unlikely to be the result of biological predispositions only.
4 GENDER AND COMMUNICATION: ARE THERE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES? 81
•Gender stereotyping is complicated due to the ever-changing nature
of humans and the ways they behave within and perceive genders.
As social dynamics change, and certain professions and behaviors
become more accepted across genders, stereotyping may increasingly
gain the reputation of a slippery slope.
References
Admin/Public Relations & Advertising. (2017, December 12). Gender differences
in communication styles. Retrieved from https://online.pointpark.edu/public-
relations-and-advertising/gender-differences-communication-styles/.
Aponte, C. (2019, October 10). Do women really talk more than men? What’s
the evidence? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.
com/us/blog/marriage-equals/201910/do-women-really-talk-more-men.
AugustaHealth.com. (2017, September 19). Battle of the sexes: Male vs. female
brains. HealthFocused: Educational health information to improve your well-
being. Retrieved from https://www.augustahealth.com/health-focused/bat
tle-of-the-sexes-male-vs-female-brains.
Baker, M. A. (1991). Gender and verbal communication in professional settings:
A review of research. Management Communication Quarterly, 5 (1), 36.
Barclay, R. S. (September 11, 2015). Is testosterone the reason women have better
verbal skills than men? Healthline. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.
com/health-news/is-testosterone-the-reason-woman-have-better-verbal-skills-
than-men-090315#1.
Baruh, L., Chisik, Y., Bisson, C., & ¸Senova, B. (2014). When sharing less means
more: How gender moderates the impact of quantity of information shared
in a social network profile on profile viewers’ intentions about socialization.
Communication Research Reports, 31(3), 244–251.
Bloksgaard, L., Fekjær, S. B., & Møberg, R. J. (2020). Conceptions of gender
and competencies among police recruits in Scandinavia 1. Nordic Journal of
Working Life Studies, 10(2), 43–59.
Browne, B. A. (1998). Gender stereotypes in advertising on children’s television
in the 1990s: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 83–96.
Cameron, D. (2007, October 1). What language barrier? The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/01/gen
der.books.
Chua, S. M. Y., & Murray, D. W. (2015). How toxic leaders are perceived:
Gender and information-processing. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 36(3), 292–307.
82 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
Communication. (2020). Definition of communication. Merriam-Webster Online.
Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communica
tion.
Crowley, J., & Knowles, J. (2014). Gender differences in perceived happiness
and well-being of individuals who engage in contemptuous communication.
Communication Reports, 27 (1), 27–38.
Cunningham, C. M., Hazel, M., & Hayes, T. J. (2020). Communication and
leadership 2020: Intersectional, mindful, and digital. Communication Research
Trends, 39(1), 4–31.
DiBiase, R., & Gunnoe, J. (2004). Gender and culture differences in touching
behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(1), 49–62.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human
behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist,
54(6), 408–423.
Fulbright, Y. K. (2011, November 17). Male-female communication: Debunking
the Mars-Venus myth. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huf
fpost.com/entry/male-female-communication_b_813095.
Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, gender and identity: An introduction. London and
New York: Routledge.
Goldman, B. (2017). Two minds: The cognitive differences between men
and women. Stanford medicine: Sex, gender and medicine. Retrieved
from https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-bra
ins-are-different.html.
Hammond, C. (2013, November 11). Prattle of the sexes: Do women talk more
than men? BBC – Future. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/future/art
icle/20131112-do-women-talk-more-than-men.
Harvard Kennedy School. (2019). Do women shy away from competition? Do
men compete too much? Gender Action Portal. Retrieved from https://
gap.hks.harvard.edu/do-women-shy-away-competition-do-men-compete-too-
much.
Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations. Bulletin of
the Psychonomic Society, 2, 91–93.
Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Intelligence in Men and Women is a Gray and White Matter. (2005, January 22).
ScienceDaily, University of California, Irvine. Retrieved from https://www.sci
encedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm.
Jones, J. S., Tapp, S. R., Murray, S. R., Palumbo, R. J., Strange, A. T., &
Ritschel-Trifilo, P. (2018). Gender differences in online communication and
the impact of faculty gender. Academy of Business Research Journal, 1, 20–40.
4 GENDER AND COMMUNICATION: ARE THERE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES? 83
Juodvalkis, J. L., Grefe, B. A., Hogue, M., Svyantek, D. J., & DeLamarter,
W. (2003). The effects of job stereotype, applicant gender, and commu-
nication style on ratings in screening interviews. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 67–84.
Kinsey Goman, C. (2016, March 31). Is your communication style dictated by
your gender? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkins
eygoman/2016/03/31/is-your-communication-style-dictated-by-your-gen
der/#675cab9eb9d3.
Kotzaivazoglou, I., Hatzithomas, L., & Tsichla, E. (2018). Gender stereotypes
in advertisements for male politicians: Longitudinal evidence from greece.
International Review on Public and Non - Profit Marketing, 15(3), 333–352.
Lammers, J., & Gast, A. (2017). Stressing the advantages of female leadership
can place women at a disadvantage. Social Psychology, 48(1), 28–39.
Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age,
gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62(4), 797–811.
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Butler, G. L. (2003). Gender difference in
communication values of mature adults. Communication Research Reports,
20(3), 191–199.
Major, B. (1981). Gender patterns in touching behavior. In C. Mayo, et al.
(Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female
miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Languages and social identity
(pp. 196–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDuff, D., Kodra, E., el Kaliouby, R., & LaFrance, M. (2017, April 19). A
large-scale analysis of sex differences in facial expressions. Plos One Journal
[Open Access]. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=
10.1371/journal.pone.0173942.
Merchant, K. (2012). How men and women differ: Gender differences in
communication styles, influence tactics, and leadership styles. CMC Senior
Theses. Retrieved from https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1521&context=cmc_theses.
Mohindra, V., & Azhar, S. (2012). Gender communication: A comparative anal-
ysis of communicational approaches of men and women at workplaces. IOSR
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(1), 18–27.
Moriarty, S., Mitchell, N., & Wells, W. (2009). Advertising: Principles & practice
(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ni, P. (2020, Februar y 9). How to be an effective, well-rounded communicator.
Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/
blog/communication-success/202002/how-be-effective-well-rounded-com
municator.
84 M. COFFMAN AND J. MARQUES
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and competition. The Annual
Review of Economics. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~niederle/
NV.AnnualReview.Print.pdf.
Pakzadian, M., & Tootkaboni, A. A. (2018). The role of gender in conversa-
tional dominance: A study of EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1560602.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1560602.
Pearson, S. S. (1981). Rhetoric and organizational change: New applications of
feminine style. In B. L. Forisha & B. H. Goldman (Eds.), Outsiders on the
inside (pp. 55–74). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Petkeviciute, N., & Streimikiene, D. (2017). Gender and sustainable negotiation.
Economics & Sociology, 10(2), 279–295.
Phutela, D. (2015). The importance of non-verbal communication. IUP Journal
of Soft Skills, 9(4), 43–49.
Roeder, A. (2014, July 23). Do women talk more than men? Harvard School
of Public Health. Retrieved from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fea
tures/do-women-talk-more-than-men/.
Swaminathan, N. (March 5, 2008). Girl talk: Are women really Better at
language? New research shows that young girls may learn language more
completely than their male peers. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-women-really-better-with-language/.
Wood, J. (2009). Feminist standpoint theory. Encyclopedia of communication
theory (pp. 397–399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CHAPTER 5
The Conundrum of Gender Stereotypes
Birute Regine
Introduction
On September 20, 1973, during the second wave of the women’s liber-
ation movement, Billie Jean King accepted Bobby Riggs’ challenge to
a $100,000 winner-takes-all tennis match. Riggs had dubbed King the
“leading women’s libber of tennis.” King had ignored an earlier challenge
from Riggs offer to a match, but she felt compelled to play him after he
beat Australian tennis star Margaret Court, a leading money-maker on
the women’s professional tour. The 55-year-old Bobby Riggs, a tennis
champion from the late 1930s and 40, was notoriously and openly skep-
tical of women’s talents on the tennis court, belittling women players. A
blatant male chauvinist (his associates insisted it was an act) he claimed
women’s game was inferior to men’s, and that women “don’t have the
emotional stability to win…women belong in the bedroom and kitchen,
B. Regine (B)
Hancock, NH, USA
e-mail: biruteregine@comcast.net
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_5
85
86 B. REGINE
in that order.”1Riggs, who was a self-described hustler, had coined the
match “the battle of the sexes.”
Dubbed by some “the libber vs. the lobber,” the match took place in
front of a sold-out Houston Astrodome crowd. About 90 million people
watched on TV, the most watched tennis match of all time. The 29-year-
old King felt enormous pressure to win, fearing that a loss would set back
the women’s movement by fifty years. Riggs, ever the provocateur, came
wearing a warm-up jacket emblazoned with “Sugar Daddy” on it. In spite
of all the drama and histrionics, King prevailed, 6-4, 6-3, 6-3. At a news
conference after the match, Riggs admitted that King was too good, too
fast. She returned all his passing shots and made great plays off them. He
had seriously underestimated his rival.
King had a significant role in developing greater respect and recogni-
tion for women athletes and inspired a generation of women to enter
sports. She advocated for gender equality and equal pay. After Riggs’
death at age 77 in 1995, King complimented her former rival and his,
probably accidental, contribution to the advancement of gender equality.
Although the match had been coined the battle of the sexes, it had ulti-
mately been a struggle between maintaining gender stereotypes (Riggs’
goal) and shattering them (King’s goal). Male chauvinism, where men
disparaged or denigrated women, believing that they were inferior to men
and thus deserving of less than equal treatment, was still pretty blatant
back in the 1970s in spite of the women’s movement. But here in the
twenty-first century surely, we must be beyond that. But are we?
In March 2020, US Soccer claimed it wouldn’t pay women and men
players equally because, it argued, the men’s game required a higher level
of skill. Male players, they asserted, have more responsibility, an argu-
ment it used in a 2019 gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the US
Women’s National Soccer team. This argument flies in the face of the fact
that these women players who, compared to their male counterparts were
denied equal pay, training, travel conditions, equal promotion, support,
and development of their games, had more successes than the men’s team.
The women’s team won four World Cups and four Olympic Gold Medals.
The furthest the men’s team advanced in the World Cup was the quar-
terfinals in 2002. You can hear clear echoes of the themes of gender
1“The Battle of the Sexes,” on-line Encyclopedia Brittanica.
5 THE CONUNDRUM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 87
stereotyping (and of Riggs’ earlier assertions of male superiority in US
Soccer’s statements) here.
Gender stereotypes associate men with achievement, competence,
ambition, and independence, and women with being more concerned
with others, caring, and nurturing. It also assumes that the attributes
associated with men cannot apply to women and vice versa. For men
to be caring and nurturing or anything associated with the feminine are
disparaged as weak, wimps, and mama’s boy. Women who embrace their
ambition and independence are attacked and smeared as unwomanly,
ruthless, and cold. When qualities such as caring and ambition become
gendered both women and men are denied the reality that these are
human traits. I will argue here that gender stereotyping limits both men
and women’s life experiences and denies them dimensions of their shared
humanity. Neither men nor women get to be a whole person.
Gender Stereotypes Impede
Women’s Professional Growth
Gender bias against women has largely been associated with women being
held back from advancing in their careers. Take for instance, Marsha Fire-
stone who wanted to be a lawyer. After she had graduated from college
in 60s, she applied to law school. During an interview, the dean of admis-
sions said to her, “You have a boyfriend, don’t you.” She said, “Yes, I
do.” He said, “Why should I give this spot to you when I can give it to
some guy who can support his family? You’re just going to get married
and have babies anyway.” Marsha was a straight A student and involved
in lots of leadership activities at school. Despite that, she didn’t get in.
Had she been a man, there’s little doubt that his admission would have
been a breeze.
Although the dean stopped Marsha from becoming a lawyer, it didn’t
stop her from becoming successful. She went on to get a doctorate
in communications and in 1997 became the founder and president of
Women’s Presidents Organization, a global organization with the goal of
the acceptance and advancement of women entrepreneurs in all industries.
Many ambitious baby boomer women encountered such gender barri-
cades. It was bad enough then, but is it still going on now?
More and more women are entering male-dominated fields today,
which most are, and are facing a high level of competition. They worry
about finding a job in traditionally male fields once they graduate from
88 B. REGINE
college. A friend recently told me about the different experiences of her
daughter, “Mary,” and her roommate who were pursuing an internship
at a Wall Street firm. Both young women were very capable, both were
at the top of their class. But these admirable qualities were not sufficient
by themselves to ensure success.
After several interview rounds, Mary’s roommate finally met with the
top honcho of the firm. He said, “I have two questions for you. First
question. Do you have a boyfriend?” The roommate said she didn’t. “The
second question: Do you want to have children?” She said no. She was
hired. Mary, on the other hand, did have a boyfriend and did want to
have children. She was not hired.
Fifty years separated Marsha Firestone’s experience and that of Mary
and her roommate, and yet the same gender biased questions persist.
Young women today don’t often encounter the blatant gender bias the
way baby boomers did, basically being told to stay home and be a wife
and mother. Mary’s roommate didn’t really see anything unusual in this
“two-question interview.” She just wanted to get the job; that’s all that
mattered to her.
There is something to be said for learning to play the game, as this
young woman was eager and willing to do. But when do we change
the game of two question interview and get beyond the gender bias
embedded in those questions?
The Maternal Wall Bias
What did these questions really ask of this young woman? You can have
the job if you deny being a woman? If you deny having a life outside
work? If you hang out as a boy? If you don’t have children? Gender
discrimination impedes women’s career growth on the sheer fact that they
are women. What does this portend for women’s careers who want or
have children?
These two interviews illustrate the obstacles women face as poten-
tial mothers and mothers in advancing their careers, what is called the
“maternal wall bias. This bias perceives mothers or pregnant women as
less competent or at least less committed to their job, which is a major
problem for women’s career advancement. Women with children are often
excluded from challenging assignments or promotions because of their
assumed lack of time or desire. Sometimes they are told flat out they
should be home with their children. This gender bias relegates women to
5 THE CONUNDRUM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 89
low paying clerical and administrative work, while men are set on a career
path.
At Cornell University, Shelley Correll, Stephen Bernard, and In Paik
reported on their research survey results in “Getting a Job: Is there
a Motherhood Penalty” in 2007. They found that mothers suffered a
substantial wage penalty. The participants in the study evaluated the appli-
cation materials of equally qualified same gendered job candidates, some
with children, and others without. The researchers found that women
with children were 79% less likely to be hired. If she was hired, she would
be offered an average of $11,000 less in salary. Mothers were penalized
on a host of measures, from salary recommendations to perceived compe-
tence. Men were not penalized and sometimes benefited from being a
parent.
The bias that mothers can’t be both good workers and good parents
is pervasive and potentially corrosive. Beliefs such as children and family
suffer if women work often impede women’s ability to advance, as the
above study illustrates. And women with children who do manage to
advance in their careers often internalize these beliefs, and as a result find
themselves guilt-ridden about their children and never feel good enough
in their job. The traditional male role assumes a men’s job is to be the
breadwinner, spending long hours at work, which denies them oppor-
tunities to develop their nurturing tendency with their family. On the
other hand, women’s traditional role is caretaker, caregiver, and often
one who forgoes her own desires for others and looks after the home and
family. These role definitions are long-standing manifestations of gender
stereotypes that again limit their human potential.
Actions
•What are your assumptions when you see a pregnant woman at work?
•What assumptions do you bring to the table when working with women
who have children?
A Battle Women Don’t Even Know They Are fighting: Unconscious
Bias
Limiting women’s career growth based on their anatomy and maternal
function is very concrete form of bias. There is another form of bias that
is much more insidious, made so by the fact that it is largely unconscious.
90 B. REGINE
For example, here’s a situation a majority of women have experienced,
leaving many perplexed. In the middle of the meeting on a controversial
financial proposal, “Jane” had a flash of insight into the problem at hand,
and she explained her ideas to the group. She looked at the men and
women around the table as she enthusiastically elaborated on what she
believed to be an important point that could bridge their conversation.
After she finished speaking, she waited to hear responses to her comments.
No one responded. No one picked up on the idea. It was as if they didn’t
even hear what she had said.
Jane felt confused and frustrated. Self-doubt began to creep in. She
thought she was bringing a lot to the table, but then why wasn’t she
getting any reinforcement or even acknowledgement? Maybe her obser-
vation wasn’t really as worthwhile a contribution as she thought? Maybe
she just didn’t have the leadership abilities needed?
Fifteen minutes later one of the men in the group describes “his”
solution to the problem, one that is essentially exactly what Jane had
said, but worded slightly differently. It is heard loud and clear. People
declared his idea to be “brilliant!” What is going on? Virginia Valian,
Professor of Psychology and Linguistics at Hunter College, New York,
has an explanation.
In her 1997 book Why so Slow? The Advancement of Women, Valian
explored why women’s advancement has advanced at such a snail’s pace.
Along the way she uncovered the world of culturally bound assumptions
about men and women that are unconscious. She called these unconscious
assumptions “gender schemas.”
The key insight here is that women are first assumed incompetent until
proven otherwise. It’s the opposite for men. It works like this: If a woman
is successful, it’s assumed it is because she’s a hard worker, or was lucky; if
she fails it’s because she’s incompetent. If a man succeeds, the assumption
is that it’s because he’s competent; if he fails it’s because of bad luck.
This insidious landscape of assumed male versus female competence in
the workplace shapes who is better equipped to be successful leaders in
the workplace. So right from the start women are not perceived as leaders.
Consequently, cultural biases consistently overrate men and underrate
women. Self-assessment studies consistently show that men and women
apply the same assumptions to themselves. On a scale of one to ten,
5 THE CONUNDRUM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 91
women tend to evaluate themselves two points lower than an objective
measure, while men will evaluate themselves two points higher.2
Assumed incompetence puts women on the defensive and rattles their
self-confidence. As a result, their struggle to prove themselves keeps them
on a never-ending treadmill. If you as a woman have felt held to a
higher standard, it’s not your imagination; you have been. It’s the Fred
Astaire/Ginger Rogers syndrome: Ginger has to do everything Fred does,
except in high heels and backwards. Some will take on the challenge, yet
others will leave, not seeing the value in putting themselves through the
grist mill. A loss to the woman and to her field.
It’s not just men assuming women are incompetent; women also fall
prey to assuming incompetence in women. A woman may feel that she’s
competent, but she likely won’t assume that of other women. In one
global experiment called the “Goldberg paradigm” researchers asked men
and women in one group to evaluate a particular article or speech suppos-
edly written by a man. Then they asked a similar group to judge the same
material, this time supposedly authored by a woman. In countries all over
the world, participants rated the very same words higher when putatively
coming from a man than from a woman.
The fact that women often assume other women are incompetent may,
in part, explain why women traditionally haven’t been so great at helping
each other up the ladder. That’s changing however, with the plethora
of organizations and initiatives dedicated to women supporting women,
such as the Women’s Presidents Organization I mentioned earlier. Others
include Catalyst, Lean In, American Association of University Women,
and Financial Women’s Association. A revolution, perhaps an evolution,
is underway, with a new level of collaboration developing among women.
When I talk with younger women about gender schemas, some say they
don’t experience this assumption. And may they never! It’s a pretty level
playing field when entering the work force. After all, 46% of employees in
Fortune 500 are women. The good news is the number of Fortune 500
companies with greater than 40% diversity has more than doubled from
69 to 145 since 2012, according to the “Missing Pieces Report: The
2018 Board Diversity Census of Women and Minorities on Fortune 500
Boards,” a multiyear study published by the Alliance for Board Diver-
sity (ABD), in collaboration with Deloitte. Women and minorities now
2J. Zenger, “The Confidence Gap in Men and Women: Why It Matters and How to
Overcome It,” Forbes, April 8, 2018.
92 B. REGINE
comprise an all-time high of 34% of Fortune 500 board seats, up from
30.8% in 2016. Studies have consistently demonstrated that businesses
that have more women on their boards are more successful in tradi-
tional bottom line measures. Fortune 100 companies do even better than
Fortune 500 companies in terms of female and minority representation
on boards: 38.6% compared with 34%.
The higher you go up the career ladder, however, the wider the gap.
The playing field is not so equal. While Caucasian white men hold 66%
of all Fortune 500 board seats, they hold 91.1% of chairmanships. Of
the CEOs who lead the companies that make up the 2018 Fortune 500
list, just 24 are women. That number is down 25% from the previous
year’s record-breaking 32 female CEOs, the highest share of women since
the Fortune’s first 500 list in 1955. While women were at the helm of
6.4% of the companies on 2017s list, that number is now down to 4.8%.
Some women use the negative gender schemas against them to their
advantage. These women play along as if they don’t know what’s going
on when in reality, they are five steps ahead of the guys. As Mae West put
it, “Brains are an asset, if you hide them.” Being underestimated can work
to a woman’s advantage when she is covertly outsmarting men, but that’s
a short-term benefit. In the end, feigning ignorance only helps perpetuate
a misperception. What you permit, you promote.
Make the Unconscious Conscious
It is important to point out these unconscious assumptions, but it is even
more important to actively make them conscious. If you are heading a
group, be more observant. If a woman is not being heard, go out of
your way to ask her opinion and then value what you hear. If a woman
says something that is out of your framework of thinking, don’t jump
to reject it but take time to understand that alternative. This is how you
create conditions for an open and diverse discussion.
If you, as a woman, feel overlooked, don’t assume you have nothing to
contribute or are not a leader. Rather consider an unconscious assumption
has kicked in. If you agree with what a woman coworker might be offering
to the discussion, don’t wait to tell her at the water cooler. Speak up and
stand beside her in a project meeting and give her credit. Be an ally and
find allies.
If someone takes your idea and claims it as their own, don’t let them
stick you in the margins. Do what I heard a woman cancer researcher
5 THE CONUNDRUM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 93
did when faced with someone taking credit for her idea: Tell that person,
“Thanks, I’m so glad you love my idea!”
Even when women have achieved a certain level of stature, they
still have to deal with gender bias. Take Janiece Webb. She achieved
an impressive level of status, by becoming a Senior Vice President at
Motorola, in a predominantly male environment, by the time she was
47. Early in her career she was in charge of developing a missile’s most
crucial component, the guidance system. When she was to give an impor-
tant presentation to three hundred military top brass, she found herself
a bit intimidated by the experience, even though she had worked with
men her whole career. She chided herself as she had many times before,
“I can do this,” and walked up on the stage. An admiral, assuming she
had come to set up the audiovisual equipment, said, “Honey, I think
we’re all set there. You can get down now.” Janiece told him that she was
the program manager and head of the project. Taken aback, the admiral
shouted, “What the hell is the world coming to that Motorola would
send some broad to talk to me about my ordnance!” He turned his back
to her, laughing out loud, with three hundred men joining in.
Resisting feelings of humiliation as she stood there alone, Janiece had
to think fast on her feet and figure out how to dig herself out of this man-
made hole. After a brief pause, she spoke firmly, “Excuse me, admiral,”
she said. “I’m here to report on the status of the MK 45 target-detection-
device engineering program. Sir, I will do my best to earn your respect.
If you give me a chance, you will find I can do this job, and if not, you
can fire me.” He turned around and said, “That’s pretty gutsy. Let’s hear
what you have to say.”
Today it may not be so overt, but how we perceive competence never-
theless continues in more subtle ways, that ultimately affect promotions,
salaries, and opportunities.
As I noted earlier, women are often as guilty as men in embracing
gender schemas of female incompetence, which can undermine women’s
self-confidence. Instead of limitations being imposed, women may self-
impose limitations. Women often feel compelled to go to extremes to
compensate for these perceived inadequacies, over preparing for a job or
assignment, gaining more experience than they really need to do it well,
and demanding impossible perfection in themselves. Men, on the other
hand, feel free to learn on the way and expect that someone will help
them along; and if they fail, they get help to pick themselves up and dust
themselves off.
94 B. REGINE
Actions
•Take stock of your own assumptions.
•Do you first assume a woman isn’t competent until proven otherwise?
If so, it’s a way to keep good ideas out of the discussion.
•Do you feel you are never good enough?
•Are you imposing an unnecessary limitation on yourself, or are you
perhaps reacting to someone’s bias?
•When you walk into a mixed meeting of men and women, who do you
assume the leader of the group to be?
Male Stereotypes Impede Men’s Emotional Growth
Gender bias generally refers to preferential treatment of men, specifically
white, heterosexual men. However, men face their own restrictions. Why,
for instance, is it necessary for a man to go to great lengths to demon-
strate and defend his masculinity, often putting himself at unnecessary
risk in the process? Why does a man have to suck it up? Why is it okay for
men to have angry outbursts but not okay to cry or demonstrate other
emotions? Why do they have to pretend they are tough and always have
the answers? In other words, why do men have to seem invincible in order
to be regarded as strong and manly?
A gender bias on men is a taboo on revealing their vulnerability.
Vulnerability, perhaps the most human of traits, is gender-coded as femi-
nine and therefore shameful for men. No one likes to feel vulnerable, but
if men must constantly feign invulnerability, or always battle to control his
environment in order to avoid vulnerable feelings, then he leaves whole
dimensions of himself unknown as well as emotionally stifling others along
the way. By avoiding vulnerability, its emotional pain, its potential for
personal growth and connection, men end up limiting their humanity
and their emotional development.
Gender bias arises as an unconscious expectation that men should
physically, emotionally, and mentally camouflage their needs and depen-
dencies with the mask of invincibility. He must struggle to deny and mask
weakness—fear, uncertainty, ambivalence, dependency—in order to be
regarded as a real man. Perhaps the truth lies closer to what Henry David
Thoreau observed, “The mass of men leads lives of quiet desperation.”
5 THE CONUNDRUM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 95
Because of this bias for men to be tough, they are ill prepared to
deal with their more delicate and tender feelings. They can swing in the
other direction and engage in hubris, bullying, elitism, behaviors that
are counterproductive in the workplace. I call this denial of vulnerability,
manifested as bullying, the “gladiator defense.”
Unwilling or unable to admit their vulnerabilities, gladiators fend
off and avoid these feelings by externalizing them and projecting them
onto others. They exercise power by humiliating, shaming, avenging,
and hurting—all vulnerable feelings they themselves have, but cannot
or will not deal with. Instead they force these feelings of weakness on
others and proceed to attack the very thing in another that they despise
in themselves. In sport speak, “The best defense is a good offense.”
When a gladiator attacks, he is actually attacking a hidden part of himself.
The attack is not an exercise of self-assertion. Instead, the gladiator is
attempting to destroy what he does not want to see in himself or feels
ill-equipped to deal with.
Regarded primarily as a weakness rather than as a powerful source
of connection to themselves and others, vulnerability is derided as an
anathema to manhood and boys learn this at an early age. Boys learn
that they have to feign a sense of invincibility. Sports is a wonderful
source for learning teamwork but can also be a path to this indoctrination
of manhood: toughing it out through injury, destroying the opposition,
dominating the game, and so on. Boys are also taught to be femiphobic,
to deny and fear all the feminine aspects of themselves because, gener-
ally, to embrace the feminine means being demeaned as powerless, soft,
inferior, and shunted.
Tethering men to an unrealistic male identity of invincibility that
demands they disconnect from their vulnerability is not only inhumane,
but also impedes their willingness to be truly courageous and negatively
impacts the organization itself. Just as assuming women’s incompetence
keeps out good ideas in an organization, so does bullying through intimi-
dation. Unlike women who suffer from consequences due to gender bias,
men who bully are not generally held accountable for their behavior. In
fact, they are often rewarded with promotions and viewed as strong. As a
consequence, men generally do not feel able to admit to failures, mistakes,
wrongdoings, or lack of knowledge without it being a threat to their
manliness. This is detrimental to the health and business success of organi-
zations because a willingness to admit mistakes and failures can be a rich
source of learning, creativity, and progress in the organization. It takes
96 B. REGINE
courage to admit mistakes and failures, and when this practice is part of
an organization’s culture, everyone benefits.
The Hidden Battle of Gender Stereotypes
How do these gender biases play out in the workplace? A common
pattern is that men often assert their dominance in order to fulfill their
gender stereotype of being strong, competent, in charge, whereas women
struggle to break out of theirs, where they are assumed incompetent,
weak, submissive, and therefore unequal. Here are a couple of examples
of this power struggle and its resolution playing out in the workplace.
Ricky and Alan
Before Ricky Burges became CEO of the Western Australia Local Govern-
ment Association, she worked at an organization as the sole female
director among all male directors, a distinction that subjected her to her
fair share of injustice, from fighting for a company car that the other
directors automatically received to arguing for equal pay. But the biggest
challenge occurred with one director who was hell-bent on sabotaging
her success.
This one director, “Alan,” tried to prevent Ricky from recommending
creative initiatives by insisting she stay strictly within the limits of her role.
His lies and dishonest behaviors surrounded her, which created barriers
to Ricky’s effectiveness. In some cases, Alan withheld information from
Ricky, which prevented her from doing her job. In other cases, he delib-
erately swamped her with information, which overwhelmed her and made
it impossible for her to determine what she really needed to know. Alan
didn’t even bother to conceal his effort to block her and throw obsta-
cles in her path. Some of the other directors found the spectacle amusing
and, like spectators at a sporting event, sat in the stands, idly watching to
see how it would all end. This pattern of emotional abuse continued for
several years. Ricky was exhausted from the whole thing, thinking, “What
can I do?”
What Ricky finally did about it came impulsively and as a complete
surprise to her. One day, as she headed for a project meeting with the
other directors, she knew from experience that one way or another Alan
would exert the usual emotional abuse. She went into the kitchen and
there was this huge carving knife on the counter. She picked it up. She
saw a box of tissues and picked that up too. She had no idea why she did
5 THE CONUNDRUM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 97
that; she just did it instinctively. Ricky went into the meeting and put the
tissues and the knife on the table. “I’m sick of this,” she said. “If I have
to use these [she held up the box of tissues], then I’m surely going to
have to use this [she flourished the knife].” She didn’t know where she
got this idea. Shocked by Ricky’s statement, Alan rose from his seat and
walked out of the room.
The next day Alan approached Ricky and insisted on a private conver-
sation. This guy who had been bullying her for three years shut the
door, sat in the chair and just about cried. “I don’t understand why you
hate me so,” he blurted. Ricky and Alan then had a great heart-to-heart
conversation about their difficult history and in part what drove Alan’s
behavior, feeling intimidated by Ricky’s competence. That day changed
their relationship and they began to work well together.
In her showdown with the director, Ricky stripped away gender roles,
in which Alan routinely established his masculinity by dominating and
demeaning Ricky. In other words, he was forcing her into a position of
inadequacy, and fulfilling the unconscious expectation that women are
less competent. By admitting her vulnerability, the tissues, and saying
she would take no more abuse, the knife, she stepped out of the victim,
good girl role and claimed her authority. By calling Alan on his game
and unmasking him as a bully, Ricky forced Alan to expose the vulnera-
bility he had so ardently tried to deflect and hide. With Ricky free of the
cloak of vulnerability that had been cast upon her, she connected to her
strength. With his mask of invulnerability lifted, Alan could connect to
his true emotions.
You can see, then, that when Ricky and Alan were ultimately able to
connect to genuine places in themselves, they could honestly engage with
each other and develop a real relationship, beyond stereotypes.
Action
Be brave and take the problem head on.
– Be open to unexpected outcomes.
– Ask yourself, is this my vulnerability or someone casting theirs on
me?
98 B. REGINE
Celeste and David
Celeste wasn’t so much looking for a job but rather was ready to take
the next step in developing her career. She applied for a position that
seemed a perfect fit on that path. When she learned that the job was
as a director, she said that was below her level of experience and skills.
She let it be known that she wasn’t interested in anything lower than
a VP position. Despite Celeste’s clear statement of her requirements,
the company repeatedly tried to slot her into the directorship level. And
Celeste repeatedly declined. The hiring committee encouraged Celeste to
go through the interview process anyway, which she agreed to. Although
Celeste wanted a VP position as a career step for herself, she also felt it
was right for the company because the role needed to be interacting with
the executive team. She made this absolutely clear during the interview.
When the offer letter arrived, it was for a director position. Instead of
getting upset about the letter, Celeste met with the HR person. Again
she reiterated that she had made it very clear from the ver y beginning of
the interviews that she wasn’t interested in a director level position, only
a VP position.
The executives argued that a title wasn’t important, but it was
important to Celeste. She persisted and insisted. Ultimately, the hiring
committee recognized she was the right person for the job. By the end of
day, Celeste had the offer letter corrected to VP of sales.
Celeste learned another person, “David,” had just been hired at a
director level in marketing. David, who was confident and competent,
assumed, incorrectly, that he would control the entire sales and marketing
area. He immediately saw there was a problem: Celeste. Because she
was in charge of sales and in a higher management position, Celeste
threatened his sense of authority.
David immediately started to assert what he assumed was his rightful
level of authority “He was so obvious. It was a big barbaric run for power.
He was befriending the male executives and diminishing the work of
the female executives. He would introduce some concepts and act like
everyone was just going to go along with what he wanted to do. I didn’t
agree with his strategy and told him so very directly. He looked at me
like, ‘How dare you!’ In a couple of meetings, I made it very clear he
wasn’t going to dominate me.”
The men quickly aligned in support of David. At the same time, the
women felt threatened by Celeste, and left her to fend for herself. Celeste
5 THE CONUNDRUM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 99
wondered how different it might have been for her had the executive
women rallied with her.
When Celeste refused to play David’s game, he changed his tactics and
started looking for insecurities and vulnerabilities in Celeste that might
give him an advantage over her. His fishing around turned up nothing.
After several weeks it became clear to David that his efforts to elevate
his position by attacking Celeste had failed, and he was very upset about
it. Celeste held her ground against his aggression, but she also praised him
for his work. People would ask her what she thought of David and she
consistently said she thought he did a great job at what he did, because
she genuinely thought that.
Celeste was able to separate David’s aggressive behavior from his
considerable abilities. She focused on his good qualities rather than
getting caught up in office politics, posturing, and one-upmanship. In
other words, she refused to play his game. She drew a line in the sand,
but she was kind to him as well. At one point, the company was going
through a reorganization and David was to report to Celeste. Celeste told
her boss that David wasn’t going to be happy reporting to her, given their
history; it wouldn’t be a good dynamic for either of them. If it made him
feel more comfortable and productive reporting to someone else, she said
she would be fine with that.
It’s very powerful to walk through the day knowing you are confident in
your ability. You don’t have to engage in that destructive behavior. I’ve
told people that I am not participating in that toxic behavior. They all
admit that it’s toxic and they are exhausted by it; it takes a lot of energy.
At the end of the day, David and Celeste had more of a friendship with
each other than with anyone else in the organization. A budding collabo-
rative work relationship developed. Celeste feels good that she could “be
friends with someone who was so clearly trying to dominate me. I didn’t
allow that domination and at the same time I was able to be supportive
of his work; that’s an accomplishment. I saw his aggressive strategy as
more a reflection of his socialization and how he was expected to behave
rather than who he really is. The domination game is all David knew, the
only game he knew how to play. I know he has a tremendous amount of
respect for me now because he’s seen me say no and he also learned he
was supposed to report to me and I diverted it.”
100 B. REGINE
Celeste switched the traditional game by not playing along with it.
She trusted her competence rather than question it; she maintained her
authority rather than cede it. Celeste recognized that David was fulfilling a
stereotype of the dominant alpha male, the traditional role in the business
environment, but instead of reacting to it she spoke to the competent
man behind it. By shattering gender stereotypes of a dominant man and
incompetent woman, Celeste and David were able to develop a genuine
relationship with each other as two human beings doing their best.
The battle of the sexes isn’t about a battle between men and women
but rather a struggle to get beyond these gender stereotypes that impede
real connection between people. Getting beyond these stereotypes bene-
fits the organization as a whole because it opens the door to true
collaboration and an inclusive and open work environment.
And it can be contagious. Celeste had four young women come to
her, asking if they could work for her because they saw a different way of
working, and they wanted it.
“Younger women really want the more collaborative model; they are
starving to see it. Although I don’t agree with the other executive women
trying to dominate and micromanage me, I have no animosity towards
them. I know they are very smart women and I know they will be relieved
if we can all work together. I just think they’re acting out a model they
have seen over and over again and just accepted it as normal.”
Actions
•Change the game by not playing the game.
•If you are clear as to what you bring to the table then be insistent and
persistent.
•See the gladiator defense for what it is, fulfilling an unconscious
assumption about what it is to be a man. Take the bully by the horns
and call him/her on their game without engaging in it.
•Speak to what is best in a person, rather than the stereotype, while still
holding your ground.
•Focus on how everyone can succeed.
•Know you are modeling behavior for others.
5 THE CONUNDRUM OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 101
The Conundrum
Decades of research shows that women are more likely than men to be
democratic and less autocratic, as we could see in how Celeste and Ricky
dealt with a difficult situation. Women tend to emphasize collaboration
and cooperation, perhaps in part because of the gender stereotypes that
have limited their access to bastions of power. If you don’t have the
power, you invite people to participate, you lead through motivation,
rather than incentives, and you engage shared interests. These strate-
gies proved to be a more effective style of leadership than one based on
power over others and domination. Studies show that not only is this
style of leadership more effective in traditional bottom line numbers, but
also that people prefer this style of leadership because it generates a more
positive work environment. For instance, employees like an environment
where there is a sense of a shared humanity, a feeling of community, and a
shared purpose. Yet, when people are asked to identify the leadership traits
they prefer, they describe traits associated with men and a more autocratic
style—in control, in charge, competitive. Here lies the conundrum. The
qualities we expect in leaders are not the qualities that would produce
the desired environment we want at work. Having said that, there is a
cultural shift happening where companies see the value of collaboration
and espouse it. However, they may not pursue creating such an environ-
ment in earnest because of the conundrum created by this subterranean
struggle of gender stereotypes that remain unconscious.
Ultimately the small steps and choices we take in making the uncon-
scious conscious can have a big effect and create meaningful change in
our organizations. Moving beyond gender stereotypes holds the promise
of genuine and authentic human connection that can enrich all our lives.
Chapter Takeaways
•Gender stereotypes associate men with achievement, compe-
tence, ambition, and independence, and women with being more
concerned with others, caring, and nurturing. It also assumes that
the attributes associated with men cannot apply to women and vice
versa.
•Gender bias against women has largely been associated with women
being held back from advancing in their careers.
102 B. REGINE
•The bias that mothers can’t be both good workers and good
parents is pervasive and potentially corrosive. Beliefs such as chil-
dren and family suffer if women work often impede women’s ability
to advance.
•Limiting women’s career growth based on their anatomy and
maternal function is very concrete form of bias. There is another
form of bias that is much more insidious, made so by the fact that it
is largely unconscious.
•Even when women have achieved a certain level of stature, they still
have to deal with gender bias.
•Gender bias generally refers to preferential treatment of men,
specifically white, heterosexual men. However, men face their own
restrictions.
•Gender bias arises as an unconscious expectation that men should
physically, emotionally, and mentally camouflage their needs and
dependencies with the mask of invincibility.
•Gender biases are manifested in the workplace by men often
asserting their dominance in order to fulfill their gender stereotype of
being strong, competent, in charge, and women struggling to break
out of theirs, where they are assumed incompetent, weak, submissive
and therefore unequal.
•Women are more likely than men to be democratic and less auto-
cratic. Women tend to emphasize collaboration and cooperation.
CHAPTER 6
Masculinity at Work
Jody A. Worley
Masculinity and Gender Equality
There is a broad range of ideologies and varieties of masculinity. In many
ways, masculinity is a valued social identity (Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, &
Grasselli, 2003) and, for some, masculinity is understood as an achieved
status that is not assumed on the basis of physical or biological devel-
opment but is earned through ongoing demonstrations of manhood
(Vandello & Bosson, 2013; Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, &
Weaver, 2008). However, a dynamic personal understanding combined
with a heavy external cultural influences makes masculinity a concept that
is not easily defined (Thompson & Bennett, 2015). In any event, aspects
of masculinity have implications for organizational dynamics and human
relations in the context of gender at work. Those aspects include: rela-
tional styles, ways of caring, self-reliance, a worker/provider tradition,
risk-taking, group orientation, use of humor, and (in some instances)
heroism. A description of possible enactments of these aspects of
masculinity in the workplace will be presented later. Unfortunately, some
J. A. Worley (B)
University of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, USA
e-mail: jworley@ou.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_6
103
104 J. A. WORLEY
dominant forms of masculinity, hegemonic masculinity for example, rein-
forces gender inequality relative to more equality masculinities (Messer-
schmidt, 2012).
Berdahl, Cooper, Glick, Livingston, and Williams (2018)arguethat
much of what often appears to be (or is proclaimed to be) a level playing
field of opportunities and demands for doing what it takes for anyone to
get ahead at work is more accurately understood as counterproductive
work behavior aimed at proving masculinity on the job. While there is
evidence to suggest that men and women alike must play the game to
win, or survive as the case may be, studies show that women of all races
report higher workloads that include “office housework” compared with
White men, and women and nonwhites report less access to glamor work
(Berdahl & Min, 2012; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Rudman, 1998).
Studies of corporate settings have identified successful managers as being
those who are decisive, instrumental, and willing to take risks (Collinson
&Hearn,1994; Kerfoot & Knights, 1993; Messerschmidt, 1995;Pfeffer,
2010). These are reasonable characteristics attributable to people across
gender identity group affiliations. Indeed, one recent report indicates that
29% of senior management roles in 2019 were held by women glob-
ally, and 87% of global businesses have at least one woman in a senior
management role (Grant Thornton, 2019,p.5).
Research on gender stereotypes across cultures in the 1980s confirmed
a consistent belief in male agency and action, with people from 30 nations
universally rating men as more adventurous, dominant, forceful, and
independent than women (Williams & Best, 1990). Although these char-
acteristics might be attributable to anyone, these aspects of masculinity
are sometimes enacted by men as a response to a perceived threat to
masculinity. Masculinity threat will be discussed in more detail in the
next section but has implications for observed and experienced gender
equality. For example, Heilman and Okimoto (2007) observed that penal-
ties for women’s success in stereotypical, male-dominated manager roles
may result from the perceived violation of gender-stereotypic prescrip-
tions. However, they also demonstrated that bolstering woman’s feminine
credentials (e.g., motherhood status) reduces penalties for success in a
stereotype incongruent role.
Masculinity threat is also associated with physical aggression (Bosson,
Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, & Wasti, 2009), victim-blaming (Munsch
& Willer, 2012), and sexist and homophobic attitudes (Weaver &
Vescio, 2015; Willer, Rogalin, Conlon, & Wojnowicz, 2013). These
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 105
studies provide evidence of various compensatory responses to perceived
masculinity threat by men, and these responses are directed at people
who are viewed as the source of that threat. Taking a slightly different
focus, Munsch and Gruys (2018) also provide insight into understanding
young adult men’s reported experiences of masculinity threat as it relates
to women/femininity and as it relates to other men/masculinity.
Benevolent sexism (BS), for example, includes paternalistic behaviors
reflecting the extent to which people believe women deserve to be
provided for and protected; implying that women cannot adequately or
sufficiently provide and care for themselves. When men endorse BS, they
communicate that men’s power over women is justified by women’s need
for men for guidance and protection. Hostile sexism (HS) reflects general
antipathy toward women, but also the idea that women fail to acknowl-
edge men’s legitimate power over them. Examples of hostile sexism
include behaviors such as disproportionately interrupting or talking over
women in meetings; or believing that women seek to gain power by
getting control over men. These enactments of masculinity have impli-
cations for interpersonal relationship quality and organizational dynamics
in the workplace climate.
In general, most people are woefully inadequate at predicting affec-
tive (emotional) impact of future events (Wilson, Centerbar, Kermer,
& Gilbert, 2005; Wilson & Gilbert, 2005; Wilson, Wheatley, Meyers,
Gilbert, & Axsom, 2000). People also overestimate the hurtfulness of
hostile sexism due to the dramatic nature of that type of incident. Like-
wise, there is a tendency to underestimate the impact of benevolent sexism.
Consequently, a common assumption is that hostile sexism relative to
benevolent sexism tends to produce more extreme negative emotions in
the short run and requires longer recovery (Bosson, Pinel, & Vandello,
2010). There is evidence of an intensity bias in predictions about initial
reactions of anger and disgust from women who experienced benevolent
or hostile sexism (Bosson et al., 2010). Although women who experi-
enced either type of sexism reported equal levels of fear and depression,
bystanders overestimate depression and fear responses to hostile sexism,
and underestimate those emotional responses to benevolent sexism rela-
tive to experiences of hostile sexism. This intensity bias was present among
bystanders in general, but the estimates of impact were also biased among
people who had themselves experienced sexism of the same type in the
past.
106 J. A. WORLEY
Despite these less admirable enactments of masculinity there is encour-
aging evidence to suggest that the dynamics of gender relations in the
workplace are changing in positive ways. Although most research on the
topic focuses on how gender is done (enacted) and gender inequality is
perpetuated through men’s actions, there are studies that explore how
the enactments of masculinity by men are supporting or challenging the
existing gender system. That is, how they are doing and undoing gender
in the workplace (Cf. Eagly, 2009; Ely & Meyerson, 2010; Kelan, 2018;
Ollilainen & Calasanti, 2007). Ely and Meyerson (2010) wrote about an
organizational approach to undoing gender in a case study of workers at
offshore oil platforms. Kelan (2018) also addressed the issue of men doing
(and undoing) gender at work. Ollilainen and Calasanti (2007)stretch
the boundaries of beliefs and knowing when it comes to gender roles by
exploring metaphors at work for maintaining the salience of gender in
self-managed teams. This chapter aims to contribute to this conversation
by exploring how different aspects of masculinity intersects with the daily
lives of all employees in the workplace and then discussing some possible
implications for equity and inclusion.
Masculinity Enactments in the Workplace
Prosocial behavior is any voluntary action intended to benefit or help
someone including sharing, comforting, guiding, and perhaps defending.
Prosocial engagement among women and men is common, but the
expression is unique. Women and men emphasize unique types of proso-
cial behaviors. Women are more communal and relational, whereas men
are more agentic and oriented toward prosocial behaviors that are more
collective, or group focused. It was Bakan (1966) who introduced and
summarized two-dimensional concepts that distinguish women as more
relational and communal (connected with others), and men as more
agentic, or reliant on individual agency, self-assertive, dominant, and
competitive (Newport, 2001). This predominance of communal and
agentic orientation in social exchange is pervasive across world cultures
(Williams & Best, 1990) and likely contributes to variations in the enacted
prosocial behaviors of women and men. These sex differences in social
exchange behaviors also match widely shared beliefs about gender roles.
Origins of gender role beliefs lie outside of organizations in which
we work, yet they spillover into the workplace context and undoubtedly
influence the division of labor. For example, consider who schedules the
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 107
meetings or office parties (and procures the party supplies) versus who
runs the meetings (or cleans up after the party). The point is that there
is a biosocial interaction between physical attributes and social structure
when it comes to gender relations in the workplace.
The effects of the beliefs about gender roles are mediated by hormonal
processes, social expectations, and individual dispositions; None of which
are easily defined because they are not fixed or even stable. Individual
dispositions, like hormones and social expectations, change over time and
across specific situational contexts. Interested readers may want to review
empirical evidence and details on how gender stereotypes have changed
over time from 1946 to 2018 (Cf. Eagly, Nater, Miller, Kaufmann, &
Sczesny, 2019).
Observations and everyday lived experiences suggest there are many
dimensions that comprise the system of influences on individual choices,
social exchanges, and public institutions. Prosocial behaviors are only one
domain of human behavior. Beliefs about prosocial helping behavior as
kindness and showing concern are often associated with stereotypes of
women (Diekman & Goodfriend, 2006). Yet, men in many occupational
roles also take enormous risks on behalf of others (e.g., law enforcement
officers or soldiers who protect communities and nations from attack). A
first step toward understanding the role of masculinity in the enactments
of prosocial behavior involves examination of gender roles.
Gender role beliefs are descriptive and prescriptive in that they provide
distinction between what men and women usually do and expectations for
behavior (what they should do). Descriptive aspects of gender role beliefs,
including stereotypes, inform people about typical behaviors. Stereotypes
and sex-typical behaviors are most often relied upon (intentionally or
implicitly) when situations are ambiguous or confusing. The prescriptive
aspect of gender role beliefs informs people about what is desirable or
admirable for gaining social approval in the social or situational context.
Culturally shared beliefs provide a general framework for under-
standing why prosocial behavior can be enacted differently by women and
men depending on the specific situational context. Gender role beliefs and
stereotypes dictate/predispose different prosocial behaviors for women
and men. To understand the relevance of the stereotype beliefs about
communion and agency for prosocial behavior in general, and in work-
place settings in particular, it is helpful to consider the implications of
these beliefs for the types of social relationship bonds that people form.
108 J. A. WORLEY
Social bonds take a relational (communal) form by linking people
together in close personal relationships. Alternatively, social bonding may
take a collective form by linking people together in groups and organiza-
tions (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). By ascribing ambitious and competitive
qualities to men, gender role beliefs imply a social context in which
people differ in status and men strive to improve their hierarchical position
(Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Cross & Madson, 1997; Fiske, Cuddly,
Glick, & Xu, 2002). In general, superior social status is conveyed by the
agentic status ascribed to men (e.g., being dominant and assertive), but
these attributes are not evaluated as favorably as the communal attributes
ascribed to women (Langford & MacKinnon, 2000). Therefore, a gender
role analysis (Eagly, 2009; Wood & Eagly, 2002) suggests that prosocial
behaviors are more common in women to the extent that the behaviors
have a relationship focus that provides supporting and caring for indi-
viduals; whereas, prosocial behaviors are more common in men to the
extent that the behaviors have an agentic focus where collective emphasis
facilitates gaining status, or implies higher status.
This is not to say that differences between gender roles are exclusive to
one or the other sex (e.g., that all men act one way, or that all women act
another way), or that only men (or women) would be expected to behave
a certain way in specific situations. However, the intersection of gender
roles with other individual factors do influence the enactment of proso-
cial behaviors. Gender roles influence behavior in combination with many
other roles, including roles associated with group memberships other than
gender (e.g., religion, race, ethnicity, age) and roles that are associated
with specific obligations (e.g., occupational role; family responsibility;
caregiver for a family member).
The point is that despite the diverse range of possible influences on
social behaviors, gender roles are a contributing factor and they function
to influence behavioral interactions partly through social norms and the
expectations that others have in certain situations or contexts. Gender
roles also function through personal identification with one’s gender and
are tied to hormonal processes that influence behaviors interpreted as
either feminine or masculine (Cf. Wood & Eagly, 2009).
Trends in classification of agentic and communal prosocial behaviors
are evident across social contexts (interactions with strangers, interac-
tions in close relationships, interactions in workplace setting; other social
settings) using multiple methods of observation reported in a variety
of studies including meta-analyses, archival data, field observations, and
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 109
laboratory experiments (Becker & Eagly, 2004;Eagly&Crowley,1986;
Eagly, Nater, Miller, Kaufmann, & Sczensny, 2019; Huston, Ruggiero,
Conner, & Geis, 1981; Johnson et al., 1989; Lyons, 2005; Organ &
Ryan, 1995).
In the workplace context, prosocial behaviors are sometimes opera-
tionalized as organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ & Ryan, 1995)
that might include voluntarily helping a colleague with excessive work-
load or other discretionary behaviors not explicitly recognized or formally
rewarded, but that promote organizational functioning. On the surface,
there are not significant differences between women and men engaging
in prosocial behaviors in the workplace. This is not surprising given that
formal job descriptions apply equally to men and women having the same
job. That is, it is reasonable to expect that there would be fewer sex
differences in behaviors bound by the requirements of the job. However,
there are clear differences between men and women within the domain
of extra-role behaviors that go beyond required expectations and that
may lead to personal gains in status or reward (e.g., attending meet-
ings that are not mandatory; volunteering for extra-role behaviors that
offer little or no immediate reward or compensation). Women appear
to engage in relational prosocial behaviors more than men (Farrell &
Finkelstein, 2007;Heilman&Chen,2005; Kidder, 2002). In a Cana-
dian sample, women, regardless of job status, reported more communal
behaviors than men (friendly, unselfish act) especially when interacting
with other women (Moskowitz, Suh, & Desaulniers, 1994). Moreover, in
a meta-analysis of findings from across multiple studies, female managers
offer attention to individual needs and personal consideration that focuses
on mentoring and developing employees who report to them (Eagly,
Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). By contrast, men, more than
women, appear to engage in behaviors that focus on the organization
itself (Farrell & Finkelstein, 2007; Heilman & Chen, 2005; Kidder,
2002).
Given the differences in how prosocial behaviors are enacted between
women and men, attention is sometimes drawn to helpful and harmful
manifestations of these behaviors. Attempts to gain insight and under-
standing or explanation are warranted when social exchanges and orga-
nizational dynamics appear to favor one group over another. This is
particularly the case when the people who seem to have the most to gain
(or lose) are associated with a particular identity group affiliation. Recent
110 J. A. WORLEY
work to better understand the dynamics of gender relations in the work-
place has identified and directed a focus on the role of masculinity identity
threat as a potential explanatory factor.
Masculinity Identity Threat
The notion of masculinity threat is based on the idea that masculinity is
precarious when it is believed to be a function of hierarchy and status
(Vandello et al., 2008). When this is the case, masculinity identities are
easily threatened (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). In fact, Vandello et al.
(2008) argue that manhood is threatened more easily than womanhood
and through a wider range of transgressions. An alternative perspective, of
course, might be that perhaps women have more flexible interpretations
of femininity and womanhood, and/or a broader range of acceptable
criteria for womanhood. In any event, the main thesis for Vandello et al.
(2008) is that manhood status is not a developmental certainty, and that
even once achieved it is vulnerable and can be lost. Furthermore, “because
of the precarious nature of manhood, anything that makes salient its
precariousness, or calls one’s masculinity into question, should be espe-
cially anxiety provoking,” (Vandello et al., 2008, p. 1326). Rather than
conceptualizing manhood as a developmental certainty, many gender role
theorists have instead argued that achieving manhood (i.e., agency, instru-
mentality and achievement) are central to most psychological definitions
of masculinity (Ashmore, Del Boca, & Wohlers, 1986).
Research has also demonstrated that affective and reparative responses
to threatened masculinity are not uncommon. Affective responses to
masculinity threat stem from concerns about what others might think
when masculinity is threatened publicly. In the face of adversity and
perceived threat to masculinity, men experience negative affect and
concern about the perceptions they believe others have of them (Dahl,
Vescio, & Weaver, 2015). This notion is supported with evidence of
increases in negative thoughts (Vandello et al., 2008)andreported
concerns that others may assign negative labels (Rudman & Fairchild,
2004), but also with increases in reported anger (Dahl et al., 2015). The
increase in anger has been shown to predict social dominance orienta-
tion over women and benevolent sexism (Dahl et al., 2015). Reparative
responses are behaviors that are an attempt to reestablish one’s masculinity
in the eyes of others. Men (but not women) respond to gender threats
with attempt to repair tarnished social identities (Vandello et al., 2008).
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 111
One example of reparative responses to perceived masculinity threat is
often observed in financial negotiations between men and women in the
workplace.
Netchaeva, Kouchaki, and Sheppard (2015) conducted three studies
based on precarious manhood theory to investigate the reaction of men
to women who are in supervisor roles. In their experiment on nego-
tiation strategies between women and men, where participants were
negotiating with either a male or female supervisor, several interesting
findings were reported. First, males negotiated higher counteroffers than
female participants regardless of the gender of the manager. Second,
among male participants, those who negotiated with a female manager
presented significantly higher counteroffers relative to counteroffers when
negotiating with male managers. Third, males negotiating with female
managers made significantly higher counteroffers than females who made
counteroffers to female managers. In fact, although the amount of the
counteroffer (a measure of assertiveness in the study) was clearly associ-
ated with gender of the manager for male participant, manager’s gender
did not affect female negotiators; there was no significant difference
between counteroffers made by female participants when they negotiated
with a female versus male manager.
Netchaeva et al. (2015) interpreted these findings as evidence that
a female manager elicits a threat to masculinity of male participants
resulting in more assertive behavior (higher counteroffers in negotiation)
from her male subordinates. In an attempt to buffer the presumed threat,
these researchers conducted a follow-up study to compare the elicited
threat behavior (assertiveness in negotiation) in a different sample of men
who were negotiating with a female team leader displaying either adminis-
trative (communal; soft) versus ambitious (agentic; assertive) negotiating
style. In this follow-up study, male and female participants negotiated
higher amounts with team leaders who displayed more ambitious leader-
ship regardless of the team leader’s gender. Males, compared with other
males, negotiated higher with ambitious female leaders than with ambi-
tious male leaders. However, when confronted with administrative female
leaders (less ambitious), there was no significant difference in the nego-
tiated amount. In other words, female leaders with administrative rather
than ambitious approach stood to lose less with male negotiators. Female
participants did not differentiate between ambitious female or ambi-
tious male leaders. Female participants negotiated higher with ambitious
leaders, relative to administrative leaders, but gender of leader was not a
112 J. A. WORLEY
factor in the negotiated amount, only the ambitious style of the leader.
Female participants did not differentiate between gender of leader when
negotiating with administrative leaders. For these researchers, the higher
counteroffer (assertiveness) by men when negotiating with females who
have a higher status role is viewed as evidence of an enacted behavioral
attempt to restore perceived threat to masculine identity. Next, we will
see how perceived threats to masculine identity may also lead to increased
anxiety and stress, increased risk-taking, aggression, and avoidance of any
activity that might be perceived as feminine.
Common themes across the vast literature on male gender roles and
masculinity from across multiple disciplines and perspectives suggest that
manhood is elusive and tenuous, and that manhood requires social
demonstration as proof. In other words, “real men” are made, not
born. Vandello et al. (2008) note that they are not suggesting that
manhood is more precarious than womanhood as a social construction
of a gendered reality, but that people in many cultures define, perceive,
react, and operate as if this were true. If this is true, there are impor-
tant implications of this way of operating for interpersonal relations in
the workplace context (Cf. Brescoll, Uhlmann, Moss-Racusin, & Sarnell,
2012). Certainly, it is possible that beliefs about relative precariousness
of manhood versus womanhood no longer prevail within contemporary,
industrialized societies.
Anxiety and Stress. Studies on masculinity conducted in the 1980s
provided evidence that was interpreted to mean that gender role anxiety
is central to several theories of masculinity (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987;
Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988; O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, &
Wrightsman, 1986). More recent studies have also demonstrated an asso-
ciation between threatened gender identity and anxiety and stress-related
responses that are stronger for men than for women (Caswell, Bossom,
Vandello, & Sellers, 2014; Michniewicz, Vandello, & Bossom, 2014;
Vandello et al., 2008). For example, Vandello et al. (2008) hypothesized
that reminders of precariousness and uncertainty of manhood activate
anxiety-related and aggression-related cognitions for men. They inter-
pret their results as support for the hypothesis that feedback perceived
as gender threatening arouses stronger feelings of anxiety and related
emotions (e.g., threat and shame) among men than among women,
a pattern that is consistent with the notion that manhood is a more
tenuous, precarious state than womanhood. This finding and interpre-
tation might have implications for social and interpersonal interactions in
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 113
workplace settings to the extent that situations or conditions are viewed
as a gender threat (masculinity threat) for men in the workplace.
Aggression. Threats to masculinity, unlike threats to femininity for
women, seems to prime aggressive behaviors for some men (Dahl et al.,
2015) or assertive behaviors when aggression is inappropriate (Netchaeva
et al., 2015) that are intended to reestablish power associated with
masculinity and maintain the traditional gender-based status quo. In the
Vandello et al. (2008) study, threats to one’s gender identity increased the
likelihood for priming aggressive thoughts more strongly for men than for
women.
In seeking to understand the structure, rather than the content of
gender roles, Bosson and Vandello (2011) offer insight on the use of
physical aggression and active responses to gender identity threats among
men. They found support for their hypothesis that situational and cultural
factors that increase the precariousness of manhood and the tenuous
nature of a man’s view and beliefs about his manhood also increase the
likelihood of aggressive behavioral displays in response to those factors.
Viewing gender status as vulnerable has implications for attitudes and
behaviors across several life domains including health, interpersonal rela-
tionship, and perhaps workplace behaviors. Men define their own gender
status in terms of the active things they do more so than their ways of
being and who they are as a person (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). This
may help to explain why some men take greater physical risks than women
(Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999; Munsch & Gruys, 2018). Bosson and
Vandello (2011) propose that men and women are different in the ways
they view, interpret, and use physical aggression and action behaviors.
They suggest that men are more likely than women to believe that action
and aggression are tools for demonstrating one’s masculinity to others in
social and cultural context. Their findings suggest that men do associate
manhood with behavior and that they perceive aggression and aggressive
displays as an effective way to restore manhood when being threatened.
Men in situations where there is masculinity threat have also been
found to engage in aggressive behaviors other than physical aggression.
Other aggressive behaviors associated with power and dominance believed
to compensate or “repair” perceived threats to masculinity (Babl, 1979)
might include sexual aggression (Maass et al., 2003). As mentioned
earlier, hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are distinct enactments and
elicit different responses (Bosson, Pinel, & Vandello, 2010; Dahl et al.,
2015; Glick & Fiske, 1996).
114 J. A. WORLEY
Risky Behaviors. Studies have focused on two general types of risky
behaviors in the context of response to masculinity threat: aggression and
financial risk. When induced to perform a public and stereotypic femi-
nine task, gender threats were linked to physical aggression more readily
among men than among women, whether in terms of cognitive accessi-
bility or interpretations of others’ actions (Bosson et al., 2009). Several
studies have also shown that men take greater financial risks than women
and that merely priming masculinity increases financial risk-taking behav-
iors among men (Bernasek & Shwiff, 2001; Meier-Pasti & Goetze, 2006;
Sunden & Surette, 1998; Weaver, Vandello, & Bosson, 2012).
Avoidance of femininity. Men and women alike must negotiate
work and nonwork demands. In response, many organizations around
the world have shown increased willingness to accommodate work-life
balance with flexible work arrangements and other related initiatives.
However, these initiatives are often underutilized by men (Allen, 2001;
Hill, Hawkins, Martinson, & Ferris, 2003; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton,
2006). This may reflect men’s resistance to work arrangements that
prioritize stereotypically feminine concerns such as childcare and family
(Vandello, Hettinger, Bosson, & Siddiqi, 2013).
Masculinity Contest Culture in Organizations
The chapter concludes with a consideration for how these aspects of
masculinity shape organizational workplace climate and behavioral norms
in the workplace (i.e., masculinity contest culture). Berdahl et al. (2018)
outline a theoretical framework for considering the workplace as a
masculinity contest culture (MCC) such that men experience ongoing
pressure to continually demonstrate behavioral displays as evidential
support for their manhood. In any event, the masculinity contest concept
focuses on how behaviors believed to signify masculinity in the workplace
evolve to define the structure of the organizational cultural norms. In
that sense, then, MCC is the organizational manifestation of precarious
manhood (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). Organizational culture is shaped
by traditional masculinity norms and masculinity contest culture (Berdahl,
2007b; Berdahl et al., 2018). MCC norms apply to men and women
(Ely & Kimmel, 2018), and most probably have important and largely
unexplored implications for social exchanges among people who are trans-
gender and non-binary. High MCC is associated with sexist norms and
zero-sum thinking such that men in masculinity contest work cultures
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 115
may be inclined to view any power gains by women as a threat or poten-
tial for loss in status or power of men (Kuchynka, Bosson, Vandello, &
Puryear, 2018).
The consequences for organizations with high MCC include toxic lead-
ership, higher incidences of harassment and bullying, along with low
employee outcomes on several hygiene factors such as work engage-
ment, dedication, and well-being at work. Toxic masculinity “involves
the need to aggressively compete and dominate others” (Kuppers, 2005,
p. 713). However, not all masculinity is toxic and not all workplaces that
employ men, whether the workforce is predominately male or female, are
a masculinity contest culture. Work becomes a masculinity contest when
enacted organizational values are more reflective of masculinity norms
than the espoused organizational mission. Examples of masculinity culture
might include, but are certainly not limited to competitive displays of
workload (Williams, 2013), sexual harassment (Berdahl, 2007a,2007b),
physical aggression (Bosson et al., 2009), risk-taking (Iacuone, 2005).
Chapter Takeaways
Gender inclusion and work-life integration are key factors that promote
flexible workplace practices and progress by interrupting cycles of gender
bias (Bailyn, 2011; Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubio, 2002).
Gender inclusion consists of organizational awareness of and support for
equal gender representation at senior organizational levels and intoler-
ance for “Good old boy” networks in which small groups of men control
the workplace and offer an occasional “sweetheart deal” for women
employees.
If competitive us-versus-them perspectives elicit hostile or aggressive
behaviors among men in response to success of women in the workplace,
then one key to creating more gender equity and inclusion in the work-
place may involve finding ways to diffuse this type of zero-sum thinking.
Organizations that have more gender diversity enjoy significant concrete
rewards including enhanced innovation and decision-making (Galinsky
et al., 2015). Organizational leadership can intentionally modify practices
and wording in policies that appear to benefit or privilege any group at
the expense of another. Adopting organizational strategies that appear
to benefit or single out any particular group or class of employee may be
counterproductive and create backlash. For example, implementing diver-
sity training, equity and inclusion workshops, or initiatives for work-life
116 J. A. WORLEY
integration into organizations that have high masculinity contest cultures
are not likely going to result in meaningful change (Williams, 2013).
Although intuitively appealing, these types of organizational practices
often have the unintended consequences of increasing resentment.
Initiatives that promote work-life integration allow and encourage all
workers to control when and where they work while advancing creative
flexible solutions. Work-life norms counterbalance the masculinity contest
culture norms that value devotion to the centrality of work in life. Poli-
cies and practices that seek to benefit or celebrate specific groups very
likely activate a competitive or protective mindset among high-status
group members. Organizations seeking to reduce zero-sum thinking
might benefit from the intentional framing of gender fair policies with
wording that support all workers. Subtle changes in wording such as
replacing “maternal leave” with “parental leave” communicates support
for all parents regardless of gender identity.
Giving and taking is what reciprocity and social exchange (power
exchange currencies) are all about. Perceptions of gender and gender
roles certainly influence the interpersonal exchanges that occur in a work-
place setting. This chapter has focused on the specific role that masculinity
plays at the intersections of gender relations in the workplace between and
among the multidimensional aspects of gender identity.
References
Allen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organiza-
tional perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., & Wohlers, A. J. (1986). Gender stereotypes.
In R. D. Ashmore & F. KDel Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male
relations (pp. 69–119). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Babl, J. D. (1979). Compensatory masculine responding as a function of sex
role. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 252–257.
Bailyn, L. (2011). Redesigning work for gender equity and work-personal life
integration. Community, Work & Family, 14, 97–112.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in
Western man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differ-
ences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson
(1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38–44.
Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of women and men.
American Psychologist, 59, 163–178.
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 117
Berdahl, J. L. (2007a). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the
context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 641–658.
Berdahl, J. L. (2007b). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 425–437.
Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W., & Williams, J. C. (2018).
Work as masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 422–448.
Berdahl, J. L., & Min, J. A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace conse-
quences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 18, 141–152.
Bernasek, A., & Shwiff, S. (2001). Gender, risk, and retirement. Journal of
Economic Issues, 35, 345–356.
Bosson, J. K., Pinel, E. C., & Vandello, J. A. (2010). The emotional impact of
ambivalent sexism: Forecasts versus real experiences. Sex Roles, 62, 520–531.
Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to
action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 82–86.
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R., Weaver, J., & Wasti, A. (2009).
The links between precarious manhood and physical aggression. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623–634.
Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead?
Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace.
Psychological Science, 19, 268–275.
Brescoll, V. L., Uhlmann, E. L., Moss-Racusin, C., & Sarnell, L. (2012).
Masculinity, status, and subordination: Why working for a gender stereotype
violator causes men to lose status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48, 354–357.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective
identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71, 83–93.
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. C. (1999). Gender and risk-taking: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383.
Caswell, T. A., Bossom, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Sellers, J. G. (2014). Testos-
terone and men’s stress responses to gender threats. Psychology of Men and
Masculinity, 15, 4–11.
Collinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (1994). Naming men as men: Implications for
work, organization and management. Gender, Work and Organization, 1, 2–
22.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and
gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
Dahl, J., Vescio, T., & Weaver, K. (2015). How threats to masculinity sequen-
tially cause public discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women.
Social Psychology, 46, 242–254.
118 J. A. WORLEY
Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role
congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30,
369–383.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubio, K. (2002). Red
light, green light: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling.
Organizational Science, 13, 355–369.
Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of
the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-
analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100,
283–308.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. (2003). Trans-
formational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis
comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2019).
Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U. S.
public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75, 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494.
Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale
development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations.
Behavior Modification, 11, 123–136.
Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-
rose stress: Predictor of anger anxiety, and health risk behaviors. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 52, 133–141.
Ely, R. J., & Kimmel, M. (2018). Thoughts on the workplace as a masculinity
contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 628–634.
Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2010). An organizational approach to undoing
gender: The unlikely case of offshore oil platforms. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 30, 3–34.
Farrell, S. K., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2007). Organizational citizenship behavior
and gender: Expectations and attributions for performance. North American
Journal of Psychology, 9, 81–95.
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. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 878–902.
Galinsky, A. D., Todd, A. R., Homan, A. C., Phillips, K. W., Apfelbaum, E. P.,
Sasaki, S. J., et al. (2015). Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of
diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 742–
748.
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 119
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating
hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
491–512.
Grant Thornton. (2019, March). Women in business: Building a blueprint for
action. Grant Thorton International, Ltd. Retrieved at: https://www.grantt
hornton.global/globalassets/global-insights—do-not-edit/2019/women-in-
business/gtil-wib-report_grant-thornton-spreads-low-res.pdf.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences:
Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 431–441.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for
success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 81–92.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Martinson, V., & Ferris, M. (2003). Studying
“working fathers”: Comparing fathers’ and mothers’ work-family conflict, fit,
and adaptive strategies in a global high-tech company. Fathering, 1, 239–261.
Huston, T. L., Ruggiero, M., Conner, R., & Geis, G. (1981). Bystander inter-
vention into crime: A study based on naturally occurring episodes. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 44, 14–23.
Iacuone, D. (2005). “Real men are tough guys”: Hegemonic masculinity and
safety in the construction industry. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 13, 247–266.
Johnson, R. C., Danko, G. P., Darvill, T. J., Bochner, S., Bowers, J. K., Huang,
Y.-H., et al. (1989). Cross-cultural assessment of altruism and its correlates.
Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 855–868.
Kelan, E. K. (2018). Men doing and undoing gender at work: A review and
research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 544–558.
Kerfoot, D., & Knights, D. (1993). Management, masculinity and manipulation:
From paternalism to corporate strategy in financial services in Britain. Journal
of Management Studies, 30, 659–678.
Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 28, 629–648.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control,
and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control,
and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347–367.
Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Puryear, C. (2018). Zero-sum
thinking and the masculinity contest: Perceived intergroup competition and
workplace gender bias. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 529–550.
Kuppers, K. A. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment
in prison. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 713–724.
Langford, T., & MacKinnon, N. J. (2000). The affective bases for the gendering
of traits: Comparing the United States and Canada. Social Psychology Quar-
terly, 63, 34–48.
120 J. A. WORLEY
Lyons, M. T. (2005). Who are the heroes? Characteristics of people who rescue
others. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 245–254.
Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment
under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853–870.
Meier-Pasti, K., & Goetze, E. (2006). Masculinity and femininity as predictors
of financial risk-taking: Evidence from a priming study on gender salience.
European Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 45–46.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (1995). Managing to kill: Masculinities and the space
shuttle challenger explosion. Masculinities, 3, 1–22.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2012). Engendering gendered knowledge: Assessing the
academic appropriation of hegemonic masculinity. Men and Masculinities,
15(1), 56–76.
Michniewicz, K., Vandello, J. A., & Bossom, J. K. (2014). Men’s
(mis)perceptions of the stigma of unemployment. Sex Roles, 70, 88–97.
Moskowitz, D. S., Suh, E. J., & Desaulniers, J. (1994). Situational influences
on gender differences in agency and communion. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 753–761.
Munsch, C. L., & Gruys, K. (2018). What threatens, defines: Tracing the
symbolic boundaries of contemporary masculinity. Sex Roles, 79, 375–392.
Munsch, C. L., & Willer, R. (2012). The role of gender identity threat in
perceptions of date rape and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women, 18,
1125–1146.
Netchaeva, E., Kouchaki, M., & Sheppard, L. D. (2015). A man’s (precarious)
place: Men’s experienced threat and self-assertive reactions to female superiors.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1247–1259.
Newport, F. (2001, February 21). Americans see women as emotional and
affectionate, men as more aggressive: Gender specific stereotypes persist in recent
Gallup poll. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from, https://news.gallup.com/poll/
1978/americans-see-women-emotional-affectionate-men-more-aggressive.
aspx.
Ollilainen, M., & Calasanti, T. (2007). Metaphors at work: Maintaining the
salience of gender in self-managing teams. Gender & Society, 21, 5–27.
O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. (1986).
Gender role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14,
335–350.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why some people have it and others don’t.NewYork:
Harper Business.
6 MASCULINITY AT WORK 121
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs
and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counter-stereotype
behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.
Sunden, A. E., & Surette, B. J. (1998). Gender differences in the allocation of
assets in retirement savings plans. American Economic Review, 88, 207–211.
Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity
ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 115.
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and
synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 14(2), 101.
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R.
(2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,
1325–1339.
Vandello, J. A., Hettinger, V. E., Bosson, J. K., & Siddiqi, J. (2013). When equal
really isn’t equal: The masculine dilemma of seeking work flexibility. Journal
of Social Issues, 69, 303–321.
Weaver, K. S., & Vescio, T. K. (2015). The justification of social inequality in
response to masculinity threats. Sex Roles, 72, 521–535.
Weaver, K. S., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2012). Intrepid, imprudent,
or impetuous? The effects of gender threats on men’s financial decisions.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14, 184–191.
Willer, R., Rogalin, C., Conlon, B., & Wojnowicz, M. T. (2013). Overdoing
gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. American Journal
of Sociology, 118, 980–1022.
Williams, J. C. (2013, May 29). Why men work so many hours. Harvard Busi-
ness Review. Retrieved April 20, 2020 from, https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-
men-work-so-many-hours.
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination
study (rev ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., Kermer, D. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). The
pleasures of uncertainty: Prolonging positive moods in ways people do not
anticipate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 5–21.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to
want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 131–134.
Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T. P., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D.
(2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 821–836.
122 J. A. WORLEY
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of
women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 699–727.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2009). Gender identity. In M. R. Lear y & R. H.
Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 109–
125). New York: Guilford Press.
CHAPTER 7
Gender Stereotypes: The Profiling of Women
in Marketing
Thuc-Doan Nguyen
Introduction
Stereotyping in advertising can be considered both “mirror” and “mold”,
reflecting and shaping the values of its target audience. However, research
shows a large gap between portrayals of women in advertising and the
changing roles of women in society. Although the financial, social, and
educational status of women has evolved significantly over the decades,
one research stream shows that there have been few changes in female
portrayals in advertising, and stereotyping has in fact become worse
(Ganahl, Prinsen, & Netzley, 2003; Milner & Higgs, 2004; Plakoyian-
naki & Zotos, 2009; Tsichla & Zotos, 2013). On the other hand, another
research stream shows improvement in female portrayals in keeping with
female status improvement in society (Furnham & Mak, 1999; Wolin,
2003).
Gender stereotypes in advertising have also been used to promote
products (Courtney & Whipple, 1983; Furnham & Mak, 1999).
T.-D. Nguyen (B)
School of Business, Woodbury University, Burbank, CA, USA
e-mail: Thuc.Nguyen@woodbury.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_7
123
124 T.-D. NGUYEN
However, a study shows that 91% of female consumers feel that adver-
tisers do not understand them. Furthermore, 7 in 10 women say they feel
alienated by advertising (The Guardian). According to the study, 59% of
women feel misunderstood by food marketers; 66% feel misunderstood
by health care marketers; and 74% feel misunderstood by investment
marketers. A survey conducted by SheKnows found that 52% of female
respondents said they purchased a product because they liked how a brand
and its ads portrayed women. However, female portrayals in advertising
seem disconnected from female roles in society as well as the interests
of female audiences. The study of female portrayals in advertising has
attracted scholarly interest for the past 60 years. However, the connection
between stereotyping of women in advertising and marketers’ profiling
of women has not yet been explored. To address the issue, this study
provides meta-analysis of research on gender stereotypes in advertising
and content analysis of “how to market to women” in practical marketing
guidelines and academic research. The stereotype of women in contem-
porary advertising will be linked to the marketer’s perception of female
consumer profiles.
Literature Review
Gender Stereotypes
Gender stereotypes are beliefs that a set of attributes differentiates women
from men (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981). Deaux and Lewis (1984)
suggest four independent dimensions of gender stereotypes: trait descrip-
tors (e.g., self-assertion, concern for others), physical characteristics (e.g.,
hair length, body height), role behaviors (e.g., leader, taking care of
children), and occupational status (e.g., truck driver, housewife). Each
dimension has masculine and feminine versions, which are strongly related
to gender types. For example, the masculine role includes the notions
of authority, leader, and decision-maker while the feminine role includes
traditional and decorative roles such as caretakers and subordinates.
Gender stereotypes might lead to expectations and judgments that
restrict life opportunities for one gender. For example, stereotyping phys-
ical characteristics of women such as weight and skin color can lead
to body dissatisfaction and reduced self-confidence. Stereotyping role
behaviors of women as supportive and caring might lead to harm-
promotion opportunities for women. Gender stereotyping provides a
7 GENDER STEREOTYPES: THE PROFILING OF WOMEN IN MARKETING 125
dichotomous model, which thinks and speaks of women in comparison
to men (Tuchman, 1979).
The “Mold” versus “Mirror” Debate
Scholars have long discussed the interaction between advertising and
society. There are two opposite points of view: the “mold” and the “mir-
ror” (Holbrook, 1987). The “mirror” camp suggests that advertising
reflects dominant values in a culture. The underlying rationale is that there
are environmental factors that shape the value system in a society. Adver-
tising is a representation of the existing value system; it has no significant
impact on that value system (Holbrook, 1987). Thus, female portrayals in
advertising are shaped by dominant beliefs about gender roles in society
(Zotos & Tsichla, 2014b).
In contrast, the “mold” argument states that advertising has a signif-
icant impact on the values held by its target audience (Pollay, 1986,
1987). People learn from media. Gender stereotypes in advertising create,
shape, and reinforce the audience’s perceptions about society. Gradually,
advertising changes people’s attitude and behavior (Ganahl et al., 2003).
Gender stereotypes in advertising are incorporated into people beliefs
about gender. Advertising creates gender identity, the stereotyped iconog-
raphy of masculinity and femininity (Schroeder & Zwick, 2004). Female
portrayals in advertising model lifestyles and forms of self-representation
that female consumers use to define their gender roles (Plakoyiannaki
et al., 2008).
Scholars speculate that the truth lies in the continuum between the
“mirror” and “mold” arguments (Graua & Zotos, 2016; Zotos & Tsichla,
2014a). Advertising both reflects and shapes the value system in society
(Hall, 1980; Albers-Miller & Gelb, 1996).
Female Portrayals in Advertising Review
Scholarly interest in female portrayals in advertising dates back six
decades. Content analysis has been widely used to study whether gender
stereotypes exist, identify specific types of stereotypes, track whether the
degree of stereotyping changes when gender roles in society advance,
and identify factors that moderate stereotypes. This interest started in
America, but recently scholars have also studied female portrayals in
advertising in cultural contexts around the world (Nam, Lee, & Hwang,
126 T.-D. NGUYEN
2011; Milner, 2005; Morris & Nicholas, 2013). Studies have also spread
across media types, including print advertising, radio commercials, tele-
vision commercials, and online advertising. Research also found that the
stereotyping of female images in advertising varies with the advertised
product categories (Frith, Cheng, & Shaw, 2004). Furthermore, the
audience toward whom the advertising is directed also determines how
women are represented in that advertising (Nam et al., 2011).
Content analysis studies have used coding categories based on Goff-
man’s scale. Goffman (1979) explains how advertising frames social
reality. Advertising selects and highlights certain aspects of social ideals.
Goffman (1979) investigated gender stereotype through the hands, eyes,
postures, and movements of advertising models. He classified gender
stereotypes into six categories:
•Relative Size: women are exaggeratedly shown as smaller and shorter
than men
•Feminine Touch: Women are shown caressing objects or touching
themselves as delicate and precious objects.
•Function Ranking: women have the subordinate role when cooper-
ating with men.
•Family Scenes—Women are depicted as mothers and caretakers while
men are portrayed as protectors of the family
•Ritualization of Subordination: Women are more likely to be shown
lying down, often in flirtatious or childish poses, even when it is not
appropriate.
•Licensed Withdrawal: Women remove themselves physically or
psychologically from the situation at hand. They are distracted or
not involved in their surroundings.
Kang (1997) added two categories to Goffman’s original scale
(1) Body Display: women are shown in revealing clothes and (2)
Independence/Self-assurance: the overall impression of independence
and/or self-assurance by showing a poker face, a straight and confident
gaze and a space-occupying posture.
Another research stream focuses on female role stereotypes. Female
role stereotypes are classified under four themes: (1) women in decora-
tive roles, where they are portrayed as sex objects in pursuit of beauty
and physical attractiveness; (2) women in traditional roles, where they
7 GENDER STEREOTYPES: THE PROFILING OF WOMEN IN MARKETING 127
are depicted as dependent on a male’s protection, as good wives, and as
belonging at home; (3) women in non-traditional roles, where they are
career-oriented or engaging in activities outside the home (e.g., sport);
and (4) women portrayed as equal to men (Belkaoui & Belkaoui, 1976;
Lysonski, 1985; Mitchell & Taylor, 1990; Zotos & Lysonski, 1994).
Both “mirror” and “mold” arguments claim that female portrayals in
advertising are connected to gender-related development. Several studies
have examined whether the degree of stereotyping has varied given social
changes and transformation. All research found that gender stereotypes
still exist in advertising. However, some studies claim that the degree
of stereotyping has slightly decreased (Wolin, 2003). Women are shown
less in traditional roles and settings and more in modern roles as well
as outside settings (Furnham & Mak, 1999). In contrast, several studies
stress that female images in advertising have gotten worse. Recent studies
found that women are more frequently portrayed in traditional roles in
recent years, compared with results from studies in the nineteenth century
(Ganahl et al., 2003; Milner & Higgs, 2004). What makes it worse is
the fact that with contemporary social changes promoting women’s roles
in our society, increasing gender stereotyping in advertising widens the
gap between female portrayal in advertising and women’s experiences in
uplifting their social, financial, and educational status.
Spear and Amos (2014) found that traditional female images in adver-
tising portraying women as housewives, nurturers, and comforters are
relatively consistent over time. During times of societal distress and
crisis, the prevalence of these traditional female images intensifies. Adver-
tisers choose to stick with popular viewpoints about females during crisis
periods. In prosperous and peaceful times, advertisers try to choose
riskier, emerging ideas. Modern and emergent female roles are shown
more in boom times. Their study explains the contradictory results of
research on trends and the direction of female portrayals in advertising.
Methodology
Meta-Analysis
To answer the first research question, a qualitative meta-analysis named
the thematic synthesis (Thomas & Harden, 2008) is used. Qualitative
meta-analysis consists of a secondary analysis of the primary, original,
studies addressing the same research questions (Timulak, 2014). In
128 T.-D. NGUYEN
this study, the topic of the qualitative meta-analysis is how females are
portrayed in advertising.
The search for studies for inclusion in thematic synthesis is purposive,
not exhaustive. It is not necessary to identify all available primary studies.
Studies are selected depending on their contexts, concepts, and diver-
gence. The sampling process ends when data is saturated—that is, when
there is no new theme emerging from new data (Thomas & Harden,
2008).
I searched extensively for studies focusing on female images in adver-
tising. The first step was to use a simple electronic search of a database.
Next, I spend a considerable amount of time screening titles and abstracts.
I was searching for variety in terms of advertising media from magazines
and radio to websites. I also considered variety in terms of product cate-
gories and cultures. At last, references in the chosen articles were searched
and screened as above. This study is interested in female portrayals in
advertising since 2000. Only studies that collect advertisements published
in and after the year 2000 were selected. This results in 26 studies
included in the pool.
Content Analysis
A content analysis of “how to market to women” is used to explore the
female consumer profiles created by marketers. Qualitative content anal-
ysis is a method for systematically assigning the meaning of qualitative
data (Schreier, 2014). This method reduces data related to the research
question through coding, categorizing, and abstracting to find emerging
themes.
Collecting Materials
Keyword searches for “marketing to women”, “targeting,” “female
consumers,” and “advertising to women” were used on a number of
databases and internet search engines (e.g., Factiva, Google, EBSCO)
to finds articles from industry related to the topic “how to market to
women.” Only materials dated since 2010 are selected. The sampling
process was purposive, not exhaustive. The sampling process ended when
data was saturated. There were 50 articles included in the pool.
7 GENDER STEREOTYPES: THE PROFILING OF WOMEN IN MARKETING 129
Findings
Female Portrayals in Advertising Since 2000
There still exist gender stereotypes in advertising. Gender stereotypes exist
in all cultures from Asia, Africa, Australia, Eastern and Western Europe as
well as in the Americas. However, the degree of gender stereotypes varies
across cultures.
Age. Female central characters are more likely portrayed as young while
male central characters are in the middle age and older age segments
(Prieler, Ivanov, & Hagiwara, 2015). Women are also shown as unmarried
while men are more likely to be portrayed as married. Young and unmar-
ried women are perceived as attractive. The stereotype emphasizes the
physical attractiveness of female youth. Seniority, by contrast, is associated
with knowledge and power. The lack of aging women shows that women
are valued primarily because of their youth and attractiveness, not for their
knowledge and power (Prieler et al., 2015;Kim&Lowry,2005; Gerbner,
1998). Asian women are shown as younger than Western women (Nam
et al., 2011).
Sexism. Significant gender differences in the degree of dress and strong
associations between gender and type of dress were found in many studies
(Eisend, 2010;Kim&Lowry,2005). Males are more likely to be fully
dressed than females while women are often seen partially dressed or
nude. Female central characters are also portrayed with a more femi-
nine touch. They are shown as childlike, pouting, or cute and smiling
(Nam et al., 2011). All these portrayals create ideal images of females
as sex objects, triggers for seduction and desire, and displays of physical
attractiveness. Western women are shown as more sexually provocative
than Asian women (#4). They are more likely to show body shape and
nudity than their Asian counterparts. Women are more often portrayed as
sexually attractive in ads targeting male audiences.
Roles. Women are significantly portrayed in decorative roles and tradi-
tional roles. Women are seen as beauty objects or sex objects in their
decorative roles. They are using products to obtain beauty and attractive-
ness when the ads target a female audience. However, when the ads target
a male audience, the images of beautiful and attractive women are used as
the reward for buying products. Male consumers are portrayed as using
products to obtain attractive women (Baker, 2005).
Women are also popular in traditional roles such as housewife,
nurturer, and comforter. They are shown cooking, cleaning, and doing
130 T.-D. NGUYEN
other housework or relaxing at home (Nam et al., 2011; Plakoyiannaki
& Zotos, 2009). Women are often shown in dependent roles, not having
any “voice of authority,” but rather asking or listening to advice. Although
this portrayal varies depending on social condition (whether the society
that produced the advertisement is in crisis or prosperous), women are
rarely portrayed in non-traditional roles (Spear & Amos, 2014)asprofes-
sional, authorities, experts. Women are more likely to be seen as central
characters in advertising of cosmetics/toiletries, household goods, and
simple or unimportant products. Men, however, are more often seen in
advertising for technical products such as cars or high-tech devices (Valls-
Fernández & Martínez-Vicente, 2007;Kim&Lowry,2005). Women are
less likely to be seen as professionals, executives, and high-level workers.
They are seen as homemakers, or as unpaid or low-paid workers. They
are often seen nurturing children and doing household chores (Milner &
Higgs, 2004).
Female Consumer Profiles
While the advertising industry relies heavily on gender stereotyping to
promote products, marketers have recognized its pitfalls. Plenty of “how
to” guides on marketing to women point out the mistake of stereotyping
female consumers. Overly simplistic or stereotypical characterizations do
not do much for brand loyalty and can actually damage brand reputation
(Zbooker, 2019). Content analysis of materials from industry provides
the following themes related to female consumer profiles.
Heterogeneity. One of the main themes emerging from the data is
that the female market is very diverse. It includes multiple segments of
different life stages, various lifestyles, diverse values, and commitment to
several causes. Thus, it is no surprise that 45% of respondents partici-
pating in Kantar’s “Getting Gender Right” survey report that advertising
is based on stereotypes and that women are portrayed in outdated ways.
Stereotyping treats women as if they are all the same, which risks insulting
a marketer’s target audience.
Multiple Roles. It is undeniable that women often serve as primary
caregivers, as stereotyped in advertising. However, caregiver is only one
of their roles. Globally, women are in the labor force more now than
ever before. They account for about 39% of the workforce globally, and
about 46% in the US (Catalyst). In fact, although the ratio remains
small, women have already joined the C-suite. About 7% of Fortune
7 GENDER STEREOTYPES: THE PROFILING OF WOMEN IN MARKETING 131
500 companies’ CEOs are women. Women account for nearly a third
of senior managers. Women even earn more higher-education degrees
than men do. Women get married at older ages. Japanese women are
increasingly opting out of marriage entirely. More women are choosing
not to have children. These demographic trends drive the world’s female
populations into multiple roles not only at home but also in public. At
different life stages, certain roles emerge as dominant ones that shape
female consumers’ decisions.
A study by Insight Marketing reveals that 91% of female respondents
do not feel that marketers effectively target them. Female consumers want
to tell their stories, which are related to women’s own situations, with a
female voice. Gender stereotyping in advertising cannot connect to female
consumers.
Causes and Values. Ernst and Young’s Groundbreakers report revealed
that women reinvest 90% of their income into their families and commu-
nities. Women hold on and commit to their values, whether those involve
the environment, equity, inclusion, health, or spiritual life. They want
companies to be good corporate citizens. They want to see companies
contributing to and taking substantial action toward social causes that
matter to them and their community.
Feeling Empowered and Becoming More Active. In a recent survey
conducted by the website SheKnows, 71% of female respondents said
that brands should promote positive attitudes to women and girls.
Nike, Adidas, Gatorade, Under Armour, and Twitter are among the
few pioneering brands who promote images of female athletes, active
women, and powerful female leaders in their ads. Gender stereotypes of
subordinate and decorative female roles are wildly outdated images that
are no longer connected with female consumers. Recently, movies such
as Hidden Figures,Wonder Woman,andMoana have authentically and
massively connected with female audiences. It is evident that women want
to be seen as strong, assertive, and active, not passive.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study shows that gender stereotypes are still prevalent in advertising.
Women are portrayed in traditional roles as homemaker and decorative
objects. Women are shown to be younger than men are. They are also
seen as sexually provocative. Meanwhile, some marketers present more
realistic female images. The female market is heterogeneous. Women play
132 T.-D. NGUYEN
multiple roles in daily life, and traditional roles are just a few among
many. Female consumers are strong, assertive, and active. They join the
labor force and gain higher social, financial, and educational status. They
support social causes that matter to their communities and the societies
in which they live.
A possible explanation for outdated gender stereotypes in advertising
is the gender imbalance in the field. Advertising, as a creative industry, is
male-dominated (Gulas, McKeage, & Weinberger, 2010). Advertising is
structured around White, male norms. Thus, female images in advertising
are created from one point of view: the view of the White male.
Today, women are raising their voices about diversity. They are trans
women, women of color, Black women, and LGBT women. They are
single moms, traditional stay-at-home moms, athletes, and CEOs. Gender
stereotypes in advertising disconnect brands from their target audience. A
survey conducted by the website SheKnows found that 52% of female
respondents purchased a product because they liked how a brand and its
ads portrayed women. Negative, gender-biased depictions of women in
advertising may have adverse effects on the reputations of the companies
that use those advertisements. Studies have found that women are crit-
ical of advertising using female images that are not consistent with their
gender orientation (Ford et al., 1997).
Beyond potential damage to companies’ bottom lines, advertising has
a powerful impact on the value system of society (Zayer & Coleman,
2015). Gender stereotypes in advertising can affect women’s self-esteem
and feelings of inadequacy (Gulas & McKeage, 2000; Zayer & Otnes,
2012). The focus on female roles as traditional homemakers, the emphasis
on their contributions to unpaid work, undermines women’s aspiration
to join the labor force. The images of women in subordinate roles may
prevent them from aiming for higher positions. Focus on physical beauty
can lead to eating disorders and unsafe use of cosmetic surgery. Further-
more, the rigid dichotomy between male and female excludes other
segments—notably, LGBT consumers.
Chapter Takeaways
•Research shows a large gap between portrayals of women in adver-
tising and the changing roles of women in society.
7 GENDER STEREOTYPES: THE PROFILING OF WOMEN IN MARKETING 133
•Gender stereotypes are beliefs that a set of attributes differentiates
women from men. Four independent dimensions of gender stereo-
types are, (1) trait descriptors, (2) physical characteristics, (3) role
behaviors, and (4) occupational status. Each dimension has mascu-
line and feminine versions, which are strongly related to gender
types.
•When considering the interaction between advertising and society,
there are two opposite points of view: the “mold” and the “mir-
ror”. The “mirror” camp suggests that advertising reflects dominant
values in a culture. The “mold” argument states that advertising has
a significant impact on the values held by its target audience.
•Both “mirror” and “mold” arguments claim that female
portrayals in advertising are connected to gender-related devel-
opment.
•There still exist gender stereotypes in advertising. Gender stereotypes
exist in all cultures from Asia, Africa, Australia, Eastern, and Western
Europe as well as in the Americas. However, the degree of gender
stereotypes varies across cultures.
•While the advertising industry relies heavily on gender stereo-
typing to promote products, marketers have recognized its pitfalls.
Content analysis of materials from industry provides a variety of
themes related to female consumer profiles, including heterogeneity,
multiple roles, causes and values, feeling empowered and becoming
more active.
•Today, women are raising their voices about diversity. They are
trans women, women of color, Black women, and LGBT women.
They are single moms, traditional stay-at-home moms, athletes, and
CEOs. Gender stereotypes in advertising disconnect brands from
their target audience.
•Gender stereotypes in advertising can affect women’s self-esteem
and feelings of inadequacy. The focus on female roles as traditional
homemakers, the emphasis on their contributions to unpaid work,
undermines women’s aspiration to join the labor force.
134 T.-D. NGUYEN
References
Albers-Miller, N. D., & Gelb, B. D. (1996). Business advertising appeals as
a mirror of cultural dimensions: A study of eleven countries. Journal of
Advertising, 25, 57–70.
Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes
and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive approaches in stereo-
typing and intergroup behaviour (pp. 1–35). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Baker, C. (2005). Images of women’s sexuality in advertisements: A content
analysis of black- and white-oriented women’s and men’s magazines. Sex Roles,
52(1), 13–27.
Belkaoui, A., & Belkaoui, J. M. (1976). A comparative analysis of the roles played
by women in print advertisements: 1958, 1970, 1972. Journal of Marketing
Research, 8(2), 168–172.
Courtney, A. E., & Whipple, T. W. (1983). Sex stereotyping in advertising.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelation-
ships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social
Phychology, 46, 991–1004.
Eisend, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of gender roles in advertising. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 418–440.
Ford, J. B., LaTour, M., & Honeycutt, E. D. (1997). An examination of
cross-cultural female response to offensive sex role portrayals in advertising.
International Marketing Review, 14(6), 409–423.
Frith, K. T., Cheng, H., & Shaw, P. (2004). Race and beauty: A comparison of
Asian and Western models in women’s magazine advertisements. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 50(1–2), 53–61.
Furnham, A., & Paltzer, S. (2010). The portrayal of men and women in television
advertisements: An updated review of 30 studies published since 2000. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-9450.2009.00772.x.
Furnham, A., & Mak, T. (1999). Sex-role stereotyping in television commercials:
A review and comparison of fourteen studies done on five continents over 25
Years. Sex Roles, 41, 413–437.
Ganahl, D. J., Prinsen, T. J., & Netzley, S. B. (2003). A content analysis of
prime time commercials: A contextual framework of gender representation.
Sex Roles, 49, 545–551.
Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication &
Society, 1(3/4), 35–58.
Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
7 GENDER STEREOTYPES: THE PROFILING OF WOMEN IN MARKETING 135
Graua, S. L., & Zotos, Y. C. (2016). Gender stereotypes in advertising: A review
of current research. International Journal of Advertising, 35(5), 761–770.
Gulas, C. S., & McKeage, K. (2000). Extending social comparison: An examina-
tion of the unintended consequences of idealized advertising imagery. Journal
of Advertising, 29 (2), 17–28.
Gulas, C. S., McKeage, K., & Weinberger, M. (2010). It’s just a joke: Violence
against males in humorous advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(4), 109–
120.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P.
Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language. London: Hutchison.
Holbrook, M. B. (1987). Mirror, mirror, on the wall, what’s unfair in the
reflections on advertising? Journal of Marketing, 51, 95–103.
How advertising industry fails women. (The Guardian). Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2016/feb/03/how-
advertising-industry-fails-women#:~:text=Women%20are%20the%20most%20p
owerful,85%25%20of%20all%20purchasing%20decisions.&text=Unsurpris
ingly%2C%20according%20to%20research%2C%2091,feel%20%E2%80%9Calie
nated%E2%80%9D%20by%20advertising.
Kang, M. (1997). The portrayal of women’s images in magazine advertisements:
Goffman’s gender analysis revisited. Sex Roles, 37, 979–996.
Kim, K., & Lowry, D. T. (2005). Television commercials as a lagging social
indicator: Gender role stereotypes in Korean television advertising. Sex Roles,
53(11/12), 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-8307-1.
Lysonski, S. (1985). Role portrayals in British magazine advertisements. Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing Science, 38(4), 418–440. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11747-009-0181-x.
Milner, L. (2005). Sex-role portrayals in African television advertising: A prelimi-
nary examination with implications for the use of Hofstede’s research. Journal
of International Consumer Marketing, 17 (2/3), 73–91.
Milner, L. M., & Higgs, B. (2004). Gender sex-role portrayals in international
television advertising over time: The Australian experience. Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising, 26, 81–95.
Mitchell, P. C. N., & Taylor, W. (1990). Polarising trends in female role portrayal
in UK Advertising. European Journal of Marketing, 24 (5), 41–49.
Morris, P. K., & Nicholas, K. (2013). Conceptualizing beauty: A content analysis
of U.S. and French women’s fashion magazine advertisements. Online Journal
of Communication and Media Technologies, 3(1), 49–74.
Nam, K., Lee, G., & Hwang, J. S. (2011). Gender stereotypes depicted by
western and Korean advertising models in Korean adolescent girls’ magazines.
Sex Roles, 64, 223–237.
136 T.-D. NGUYEN
Plakoyiannaki, E., & Zotos, Y. (2009). Female role stereotypes in print
advertising: Identifying associations with magazine and product categories.
European Journal of Marketing, 43, 1411–1434.
Plakoyiannaki, E., Mathioudaki, K., Dimitratos, P., & Zotos, Y. (2008). Images
of women in online advertisements of global products: Does sexism exist?
Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 101–112.
Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended
consequences of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 50 (2), 18–36.
Pollay, R. W. (1987). On the value of reflections on the values in ‘The distorted
mirror.’ Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 104–109.
Prieler, M., Ivanov, A., & Hagiwara, S. (2015). Gender representations in East
Asian advertising: Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea. Communication &
Society, 28(1), 27–41.
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In Uwe Flick (Ed.), The sage
handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). London: Sage.
Schroeder, J. E., & Zwick, D. (2004). Mirrors of masculinity: Representation and
identity in advertising images. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 7, 21–52.
Spears, N., & Amos, C. (2014). Twentieth century female ad images: Cultural
interconnections, social learning, and the dialectical logic of advertising.
Journal of Business Research, 67, 441–448.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualita-
tive research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
Timulak, L. (2014). Qualitative meta-analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The sage
handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 481–495). London: Sage.
Tsichla, E., & Zotos, Y. C. (2013). Gender stereotypes in Cypriot magazine
advertisements: A comparison of single and relationship portrayals. Paper
presented at the 18th International Conference on Corporate and Marketing
Communication, April 11–12, Salerno, Italy.
Tuchman, G. (1979). The symbolic annihilation of women by the mass media. In
G. Tuchman, A. K. Daniels, & J. W. Benet (Eds.), Hearth and home: Images
of women in the mass media (pp. 3–38). New York: Oxford.
Valls-Fernández, F., & Martínez-Vicente, J. M. (2007). Gender stereotypes in
Spanish television commercials. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 56(9–10),
691–699.
Wolin, L. D. (2003). Gender issues in advertising—An oversight of research:
1970–2002. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 111–129.
Zayer, L. T., & Coleman, C. A. (2015). Advertising professionals’ perceptions
of the impact of gender portrayals on men and women: A question of ethics?
Journal of Advertising, 44 (3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.
2014.975878.
7 GENDER STEREOTYPES: THE PROFILING OF WOMEN IN MARKETING 137
Zayer, L., & Otnes, C. (2012). Climbing the ladder or chasing a dream: Men’s
responses to idealized portrayals of masculinity in advertising. In C. Otnes &
L. Zayer (Eds.), Gender, culture, and consumer behavior (pp. 87–110). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Zbooker, A. (2019). How to Target female consumers. Retrieved June 19, 2020,
from, https://medium.com/@namegenderpro/how-to-target-female-consum
ers-4-effective-case-studies-9e39839add0e.
Zotos, Y. C., & Tsichla, E. (2014a). Female stereotypes in print Advertising: A
retrospective analysis. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 446–454.
Zotos, Y. C., & Tsichla, E. (2014b). Snapshots of men and women in interaction:
An investigation of stereotypes in print advertisement relationship portrayals.
Journal of Euromarketing, 23(3), 35–58.
Zotos, Y. C., & Lysonski, S. (1994). Gender representations: the case of Greek
magazine advertisements. Journal of Euromarketing, 3(2), 27–47.
CHAPTER 8
Deciding to Be Authentic: Transgender
Employees and Their Decision to Be Out
at Work
Lizabeth Kay Kleintop
Introduction
For employees who are transgender and not yet out to their peers, super-
visors, leadership, or Human Resources at work, coming out can be a
fearful event. Over half of transgender employees in the U.S. not out at
work feared coming out would negatively affect their chance of future
promotions according to one survey (Johnson, 2015). As many as 67%
of respondents to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey who applied for a
job in the year previous to the survey reported not being hired, denied
a promotion, and/or being fired or forced to resign because they were
out as a transgender person (James, Herman, Rankin, Keisling, Mottet,
&Anafi,2016). The fear of coming out is more than just fear of losing
jobs or job opportunities though those are significant fears. The fear of
L. K. Kleintop (B)
Economics and Business Department, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA, USA
e-mail: kleintopl@moravian.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_8
139
140 L. K. KLEINTOP
coming out also results from concerns over the responses and behaviors
of co-workers to the presence of a transgender person in their workspaces.
Coming out at work reduces the stress of hiding one’s identity,
increases productivity at work while developing closer, more genuine rela-
tionships with colleagues, customers, and clients, and builds self-esteem
from being known for who one really is (Human Rights Campaign
[HRC], 2015). These are benefits for employers as well as transgender
employees. Employers benefit from successful transitions as they show the
inclusiveness of the organization, demonstrating the extent to which the
“organization values and integrates diversity and supports it through fair
employment practices” (Singh, Winkel, & Selvarajan, 2013). Successful
transitions assist employers in attracting and retaining the people most
qualified for jobs while enhancing productivity, innovation, and creativity
of their workforce (Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM],
2017). An employer’s focus on judging people by their abilities provides
evidence of their meeting diversity and inclusion initiative goals, as well
as demonstrating compliance with employment laws.
Coming out as transgender is a momentous and challenging deci-
sion. The workplace can be a fearful place for transgender employees,
yet coming out can have both personal and career benefits. The equation
which a transgender employee evaluates about coming out is a balance
between being true to oneself and the perceived safety of their work-
place. Transgender employees look at costs and benefits of coming out at
a personal level which is influenced by their work environment including
policies, processes, and co-workers. They judge how safe they will be
when coming out at work against the fears of stigmatization they perceive
in their work environment and whether that level of safety, physical and
psychological, is sufficient for them to come out and be their true selves.
This chapter examines how employers can reduce barriers to trans-
gender employees coming out at work by examining the role played
by stigmatization and bias associated with transgender employees
bending societal expectations of gender. Overcoming these barriers allows
employers to create a psychologically safe workplace that will allow trans-
gender employees to be themselves at work to their and their employers’
benefit.
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 141
Challenges to Transgender
Employees Coming Out at Work
Transgender people have experienced a wide range of discriminatory
behaviors in workplaces including exclusion from jobs based on bona
fide occupational qualifications, physical assault, verbal harassment and
abuse, destruction of their property, ridicule, homophobic jokes, unfair
work schedules, workplace sabotage, restrictions to their career, resent-
ment by others for their perceived “special treatment,” religious intoler-
ance, “deadnaming” or the use of former names or pronouns, bullying,
ignoring, shunning, avoidance, sexual assault, coercive social and cultural
domination, name-calling, and job loss (Budge, Tebbe, & Howard, 2010;
Hill, 2009; Kirk & Belovics, 2008). Fears about coming out at work
also include the fear of having to talk about being transgender and being
forced to explain what it means (Johanna [spacegirl_j], 2020).
Employers also have a stake in ensuring a safe workplace for trans-
gender employees. Employers want to demonstrate inclusiveness which
they expect to lead to productive, innovative, and creative workforces
(SHRM, 2017). Safe workplaces demonstrate that employers value and
support diversity with equitable employment practices (Singh, et al.
2013). Safe workplaces support the recruitment and retention of indi-
viduals in organizations with the competencies needed to achieve the
employers’ strategic goals.
The Human Rights Campaign (2015), Out & Equal Workplace Advo-
cates (2014), and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM,
2016,2017) and others have provided directions to employers for
creating a workplace that is safe for transgender employees to transition as
have many authors (Sawyer & Thoroughgood, 2017;Stirba,Goldstein,
Gentili, Reynolds, Hill-Meyer, & Scarborough, 2014;Walworth,2003;
Weiss, 2007). These recommendations often are incorporated into transi-
tion plans for transgender employees, plans to guide the transition process
to ensure legal compliance by preventing discrimination and establishing
a talent environment maximizing the value of people regardless of who
they are (Cadrain, 2009). Even so, transitions by transgender employees
do not always result in successful outcomes.
The 2015 US Transgender Survey shows the discriminatory behav-
iors transgender employees can experience in the workplace. Forty-one
percent of respondents to that survey who reported being fired, forced
to resign, or denied a promotion believed it was due to discrimination
142 L. K. KLEINTOP
because of their transgender status (James et al., 2016). Other mistreat-
ment at work was shown including respondents reporting one or more
experiences of information being shared about them that should not have
been shared, negative job reviews, being forced to resign, being forced to
use a restroom not consistent with their gender identity or not being able
to work out an acceptable restroom situation, being required to present in
the wrong gender, removal from direct contact with clients, customers, or
patients, or being forced to transfer to another department (James et al.,
2016).
The targeting of transgender employees by others at work suggests
failures in transition planning. These failures directly impact transgender
employees and negatively impact the employment brand of their organi-
zations. Transition plans focus on changing the behaviors of employees
but not the attitudes that employees bring with them into the workplace.
Leaders demonstrating inclusivity by using their preferred pronouns in
their email signatures and allowing employees to self-identify their gender
on survey forms are good tactics for meeting legal requirements (Bennett
& Reed, 2020). On their own, however, those tactics may not go far
enough to ensure a workplace that transgender employees feel will be safe
for them when they come out. To create such a workplace, employers
need to consider the social norms employees bring with them to the
workplace about gender that may lead to stigmatization of transgender
employees and biased behaviors enacted towards them by co-workers.
Transitioning and the Stigmatization
of Transgender People
Transitioning is living one’s true gender identity in one’s personal and
work lives. Not all transgender people transition, but those who choose
to transition do so to live in a manner consistent with their gender identity
(Out & Equal Workplace Advocate, 2014). Individuals transitioning their
gender in the workplace desire to be their authentic self, to be who they
really are. They are usually interested in keeping their jobs along with the
compensation that comes with that. Most of all, they want to contribute
all of themselves to the work they do while being true to themselves.
Regardless of their goal to be themselves in their lives, transgender
people experience some level of apprehension around their coming out at
work if not outright fear of the outcomes of such behavior. They would
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 143
have assessed the tradeoff between coming out and staying in the closet
at work even if they are out in their home and social environment.
Those disclosing their transgender status must determine to whom to
disclose their transgender status, the best time and place to disclose, the
right amount of information to share, and the appropriate words to use
in their disclosure (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). Reaching out to a super-
visor or to the human resources office to initiate a workplace transition,
however, is not an easy decision to make for most people. Fear of rejec-
tion and anticipated stigmatization can lead to decisions not to disclose
their identity (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010).
Stigmatization is the result of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status
loss, and discrimination occurring together in a social situation (Link &
Phelan, 2001, p. 377). Ragins (2008) notes that individuals who are
stigmatized are often seen by others to be undesirable, deviant, or to
have repulsive characteristics. In the workplace, co-workers can apply the
attitudes of the broader society about transgender people, separate trans-
gender people as the “them” in comparison to the “us,” and use their
workplace relationships to create conflict and barriers for their trans-
gender co-workers, particularly when supervisors and other authorities
support such behaviors. Once the label of stigma is applied to transgender
employees by co-workers stigmatization can lead to status loss, discrimi-
nation that may lead to differentiated treatment by peers and supervisors,
and coping behaviors that may have negative consequences for the trans-
gender employee as well as co-workers and employers (Link & Phelan,
2001).
White Hughto, Reisner, and Pachankis (2015) identified the stigma
experienced by transgender people at structural, interpersonal, and indi-
vidual levels. Structural stigma refers to the societal norms and insti-
tutional policies that constrain access to resources, while interpersonal
stigma refers to direct or enacted forms of stigma such as verbal harass-
ment, physical violence, and sexual assault due to one’s gender identity
or expression.
At the individual level, stigma includes the feelings people hold about
themselves or the beliefs they perceive others to hold about them that may
shape future behavior such as the anticipation and avoidance of discrimi-
nation (White Hughto et al., 2015). Structural and interpersonal stigma
can lead to individual stigma for transgender people. Individual stigma
is highly prevalent in the experiences of transgender people and have
144 L. K. KLEINTOP
been linked to adverse health outcomes including depression, anxiety,
suicidality, substance abuse, and HIV (White Hughto et al, 2015).
As stated earlier, transgender people transition to reduce the stress
of hiding their identity, be more productive at work, develop closer,
more genuine relationships with colleagues, customers, and clients, build
self-esteem from being known for who they really are, and become
role models for others (HRC, 2015). Stigmatization, however, threatens
their perceptions of psychological safety at work which leads them to be
reluctant to transition and gain the benefits of being out at work.
Kahn (1990, p. 705) defined psychological safety as the “sense of
being able to show and employ self without fear of negative consequences
to self-image, status, or career. When an organization creates a psycho-
logically safe environment, employees feel more “safe in taking risks of
self-expression and engaging the process of change” (Kahn 1990, p. 708).
Singh, Winkel, and Selvarajan (2013) in a study of racially diverse work
settings found that in a supportive diversity climate employees felt psycho-
logically safe expressing their identities. They further linked positive
perceptions of psychological safety to employee performance. Psycho-
logical safety is created within interpersonal relations, group dynamics,
management style and processes, and organizational norms (Kahn, 1990).
Structural and interpersonal level stigmatization are barriers in orga-
nizations to transitions because of the fear they create for transgender
employees about coming out. These fears are real for transgender people
as expressed in a tweet by Johanna [spacegirl_j] (2020):
I am still in the closet: Fear of talking about it and explaining. Fear of rejec-
tion, judgment, harassment, violence… Fear of change. Fear of dysphoria
not getting better. Fear of all the new problems. And most of that is
because of society and I can’t change any of that.
Stigmatization becomes internalized, individual level stigma for trans-
gender people. Individual level stigma shapes how transgender people see
themselves and others, as well as the environment in which they work.
Individual level stigma may lead transgender people to expect rejection,
act to avoid stigma or conceal it when it happens, and reduce self-efficacy
as a way to cope with stigma-related stressors (White Hughto et al., 2015)
The response to individual level stigma by many transgender employees
is not to come out at work. Fifty-three percent of respondents to the 2015
US Transgender Survey reported chosing not to disclose their gender
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 145
identity at work and 29% delayed their gender transition (James et al.,
2016). In a more extreme action, 25% of the respondents reported that
in the last year they hid that they already transitioned their gender when
they were at work.
Change agents can affect perceptions of psychological safety by
creating an environment that reduces individual level stigma for tran-
sitioning employees by working to remove structural and interper-
sonal stigma in the workplace. Structural and interpersonal level stigma
contribute to the individual level stigma experienced by transgender
employees who are deciding to transition at work. By examining struc-
tural and interpersonal level stigma in the workplace, change agents can
advocate for changes to policies and organizational culture, as well as work
toward changing employee behaviors to reduce individual level stigma and
increase the perceived safety of coming out for transgender employees.
Transition plans can be the vehicle for eliminating those barriers to
transgender employees coming out at work.
Transition Plans for Creating
Psychological Safety
The purpose of a transition plan is to guide the transition process
for an individual within an organization to ensure legal compliance by
preventing discrimination and establishing a talent environment maxi-
mizing the value of people regardless of who they are (Cadrain, 2009).
Transition plans are created for transitioning employees to allow the orga-
nization to maintain predictability and have control over the process of
transitioning. This control benefits both the transitioning employee and
the organization by minimizing risks for both.
Failure of transition plans can create significant risks for employers.
Those risks include decreased productivity of transitioning employees as
they deal with harassment and mistreatment while remaining in the work-
place, resignations of knowledgeable employees who do not want to
continue to work in unsupportive environments creating a loss of compe-
tencies for the employer and costs for recruiting, hiring, and training new
talent, and risks of legal actions by employees, former employees, and/or
governmental organizations.
Understanding structural and interpersonal level stigma and their rela-
tionship to perceptions of psychological safety can lead to improved
transition plans for transgender employees that are less likely to result
146 L. K. KLEINTOP
in failed transitions. Examining and eliminating sources of structural level
stigma and anticipating interpersonal level stigma can reduce individual
level stigma experienced by transgender employees and lead to percep-
tions of psychological safety thus reducing barriers that result in failed
transitions.
Structural Level Stigma and Workplace Transition Plans
Structural stigma is promulgated through laws and policies, cultural
norms and institutional policies that constrain opportunities, resources,
and the wellbeing of stigmatized groups (Hatzenbuehler, 2017). State
laws banning transgender athletes from competing with those based on
their espoused gender are examples of societal-level stigmatization of
transgender people (Deese, 2020). Arguments before the United States
Supreme Court recently highlighted the discrimination experienced by
transgender people and the lack of explicit bans on such discrimination in
national law and policy (Howe, 2019). Only 22 of 50 states in the U.S.
have laws that explicitly bar employment discrimination against trans-
gender people (Movement Advance Project [MAP], 2020b). The Trump
Administration has moved to pull back Federal regulations governing the
Affordable Care Act that protect transgender people from discrimina-
tion in the provision of healthcare services (Diamond, 2020). Conversion
therapy, an effort to change a transgender person’s gender identity using
shaming, emotional trauma, and sometimes physical pain, has been linked
to adverse mental health outcomes for adults, including suicide attempts
(Turban, Beckwith, Reisner, & Keuroghlian, 2020); only 20 of 60 states
ban conversion therapy for transgender youth (MAP, 2020a). These laws
and policies, or lack of them, express structural stigma toward transgender
people in the U.S.
In the 2015 US Transgender Survey, 30% of the respondents indicated
that they were fired from at least one job in their lifetime because of their
transgender status (James et al., 2016). Over the year prior to the survey,
27% of the respondents indicated that they were not hired for a job they
applied for, were denied a promotion, or were fired because of their trans-
genderstatus(Jamesetal.,2016). Having no access to an appropriate
restroom at work because of their transgender status was reported by 14%
of the respondents (James et al., 2016). The lack of a safe and convenient
restroom to use can lead to health issues such as dehydration and urinary
tract and kidney infections (Collins, McFadden, Rocco, & Mathis, 2015).
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 147
These reported workplace experiences are indicative of workplace policies
that create structural stigmatization of transgender employees.
Structural level stigma is the target of most diversity and inclusion
efforts and transition plans that are implemented by employers. Incorpo-
rating gender-affirming choices in healthcare insurance policies, such as
coverage for psychological services, hormone treatments, and surgeries,
adding preferred pronouns to business cards, and designating gender-
neutral restrooms are examples of removing institutional barriers that
could have resulted in structural stigma to transgender people. Transition
plans that address restroom designation, dress codes, personal identifica-
tion and records, health insurance, use of appropriate pronouns, as well as
the roles and responsibilities of the transitioning employee, the employ-
ee’s manager, and human resources as recommended by Cadrain (2009)
and Taylor, Burke, Wheatley, & Sompayrac (2011) address structural
stigma within an organization.
Training often included in transition plans is also a tool for over-
coming structural level stigma. Training can inform co-workers of the
employer’s expectations for the transition process. The focus of transi-
tion training, according to the Society for Human Resource Management
(2016), needs to be on employees understanding “the organization’s
expectations when a transgender employee is joining their ranks or when
a current employee is in gender transition.” This training may not address
interpersonal stigma, however.
The goal of training for co-workers of the transgender employee as
part of a transition as expressed by Ms. Connie Summers, Cultural Diver-
sity and Inclusion Manager at Boeing is not to change employees’ minds
“but we do ask them to change their behaviors” (Cadrain, 2009, p. 62).
There needs, however, to be congruency between the espoused policies of
the employer and the actual behaviors of employees to create a supportive
organizational climate for transgender employees to reduce or eliminate
their perceptions of the likelihood of their being mistreated or discrimi-
nated against because of their disclosure (Follmer, Sabat, & Siuta, 2019).
Supportive behaviors of co-workers, supervisors, peers, and subordinates
bolster transgender employees’ perceived psychological safety. Lack of
supportive behaviors is evidence of interpersonal stigma that lead to bias
incidents against the person transitioning.
Transition plans that only address structural level stigma are insuffi-
cient for increasing transgender employees’ perceptions of psychological
148 L. K. KLEINTOP
safety. Change agents also need to consider interpersonal level stigma in
the creation of transition plans.
Interpersonal Level Stigma and Workplace Transition Plans
Interpersonal level stigma takes the form of verbal harassment, physical
violence, and sexual assault due to one’s gender identity or expression.
There is substantial evidence that transgender people experience interper-
sonal level stigma in the workplace. The 2015 US Transgender Survey
showed that 15% of respondents experienced verbal harassment, physical
attacks, and/or sexual assaults at work because of their transgender status
(James et al., 2016). Sixteen percent of respondents reported that a boss
or co-worker shared personal information about them that should not
have been shared, 6% reported that they received a negative performance
review because they were transgender, and 4% were told to present in the
wrong gender in order to keep their job (James et al., 2016, p. 153).
Physical assault, verbal harassment and abuse, destruction of property,
ridicule, homophobic jokes, unfair work schedules, workplace sabotage,
barriers to pursuing career goals, resentment from peers for perceptions
of special treatment, religious intolerance, the use of former names or
pronouns, bullying, ignoring, shunning, avoidance, sexual assault, coer-
cive social and cultural domination and name-calling have frequently been
the experience of transgender people at work (Budge et al., 2010; Hill,
2009; Kirk & Belovics, 2008).
Transgender people, particularly transgender women, create a partic-
ular challenge for organizations when they transition because they do not
conform to usual expectations of gender in society. Their gender noncon-
formity challenges deeply held societal norms of a binary gender system
that is reinforced by a multitude of social and regulatory processes (Rudin,
Ruane, Ross, Farro, & Billing, 2014). Employees may hold community-
level biases around gender nonconformity which may be explicit (known
to them and within their control) or implicit (automatically activated,
often subconscious biases for which people have limited control) (White
Hughto et al., 2015). Information about transgender people that does
not fit their co-workers’ conceptions of expected gender behaviors may
create a gap between what they see happening in a transition, the expe-
riences of transgender people, and their own experiences of life. These
gaps challenge understanding and create anxiety among co-workers and
may lead to bias and unconscious or conscious discrimination, harassment,
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 149
misgendering, microaggressions, and bullying (Robinson, van Esch, &
Bilimoria, 2017; Schilt & Connell, 2007).
This anxiety resulting from the gap in experiences may lead to gender
policing by co-workers of transitioning employees. Gender policing refers
to gender-related stigma communicated to transgender people verbally
or nonverbally about expected gender behaviors, including a dress code,
work roles, and restroom and locker room use (Mizock, Riley, Yuen,
Woodrum, Sotilleo, & Ormerod, 2017). Gender policing can result in
active harassment, including verbal and physical abuse, ridicule, trans-
phobic jokes, exclusion from jobs based on bona fide occupational
qualifications, dead naming, and other actions from co-workers and
managers that are meant to pressure transgender people to conform to
their expectations of gender roles (Budge et al., 2010; Hill, 2009;Kirk
&Belovics,2008; Mizock, et al., 2017). The 2015 US National Trans-
gender Survey reported many incidents of such behaviors in the workplace
(James et al., 2016).
Co-workers’ anxiety can also lead to resentment for what they perceive
as special treatment for transitioning employees, open criticism of diversity
policies, or more frequently, passive resistance with marginal coopera-
tion, a lack of involvement, and excuse making with respect to diversity
policies (Hill, 2009). The transitioning employee may also come to be
the subject of microaggressions, commonplace, interpersonally commu-
nicated othering messages related to a person’s perceived marginalized
status (Nordmarken, 2014; Robinson et al., 2017). Backlash may be more
overt and expressed as bullying, ignoring, shunning, avoidance, and acts
of violence, physical and symbolic, in the workplace (Hill, 2009). Resis-
tance and backlash may create an environment that puts not only the
safety and well being of the transitioning employee at risk but also puts
the organization at risk for legal action.
The behaviors discussed above are incidents of interpersonal level
stigma. Consideration of this level of stigma is not always included in
the development of transition plans or, if included, is not successful
in changing co-workers’ behaviors. Employee training is usually the
instrument for addressing interpersonal level stigma.
Training programs for co-workers of transitioning employees have
been identified as important parts of transition plans (Taranowski, 2008;
Sawyer & Thoroughgood, 2017;SHRM,2016). This training focuses
employees on understanding “the organization’s expectations when a
transgender employee is joining their ranks or when a current employee
150 L. K. KLEINTOP
is in gender transition” (SHRM, 2016). This form of training is an
educational approach to transitions (Tompkins, Shields, Hillman, &
White, 2015). The focus of this training is to create supportive group
dynamics that lead to perceived psychological safety through lessening of
all employees’ conscious and unconscious anxieties about the transition
(Kahn, 1990).
Evidence about the efficacy of traditional diversity training programs,
however, suggests that such programs do not have a positive impact on
bias in the workplace. Dobbin and Kalev (2016) in summarizing the find-
ings of the diversity training literature and their research stated that the
value of such training rarely lasts beyond one or two days and might
activate bias rather than eliminate it as well as spark backlash against
minority group members. Negative effects of diversity training are seen
in organizations because the training is often mandatory and focuses on
negative effects of discrimination, such as lawsuits. These are perceived
to be threats to the trainees and threats “don’t win converts” (Dobbins
&Kalev,2016, p. 54). Efforts to force compliance result in backlash
against diversity efforts because of the threat to people’s authority in the
workplace, especially in the case of managers.
The choice of training approaches enacted as part of the transition
process is an important variable in eliminating interpersonal level stigma.
Tompkins et al. (2015) found that the approach that humanizes trans-
gender people with first person narratives and perspective-taking tasks
versus an educational approach involving a slide show and a video talk
by an expert about gender identity disorder led to different outcomes.
Subjects participating in the humanizing condition were much more
likely to demonstrate more favorable attitudes than those who partic-
ipated in the educational approach; those in the educational approach
endorsed greater levels of transphobia after the intervention than before
(Tompkins et al., 2015). McCullough, Dispenza, Chang, & Zeligman
(2019) found that previous contacts between cisgender, heterosexual
individuals, and gay and lesbian people resulted in lower levels of anti-
transgender prejudice. They suggested that those dialogues led to lower
anti-transgender prejudice through greater understanding. Moss-Racusin
and Rabasco (2018) found that humanizing a newly hired transgender
employee to co-workers resulted in increased perceived hireability of the
transgender employee, self-other overlap, and perspective taking, looking
at a situation from a viewpoint that is different from one’s usual viewpoint
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 151
(American Psychological Association, 2018). The levels of hireability, self-
other overlap, and perspective taking were found to be at a level similar
to those of a newly hired cisgender co-worker, although the transgender
target was still viewed as less likable than the cisgender target. These find-
ings also suggest the effort to humanize transgender people will have
positive outcomes for the workplace. These findings on humanizing trans-
gender people in the eyes of their co-workers as part of diversity training
is consistent with Dobbins & Kalev’s (2016) findings that getting people
involved and engaged with minorities will result in diversity and inclusion
gains in the workplace.
Summary and Recommendations
Structural level stigma in society and the workplace and interpersonal
level stigma coming from the behaviors of co-workers and managers
create individual level stigma, an internalization of the attitudes and
behaviors others express toward those who are transgender. Transgender
employees enact individual level stigma when they anticipate negative
behaviors toward them from co-workers and others at work and act to
avoid discrimination at work. They will assess the levels of stigmatization
they face and use that assessment in determining whether to come out at
work, or not.
Transgender employees weigh the benefits of coming out at work,
including reduced stress and increased job satisfaction, against the costs
of coming out associated with their understanding of their safety at work,
both physical and psychological safety. When the balance of that equation
is negative, transgender employees will remain in the closet at work and
continue to live with the uncertainty, stress, and fear that is part of being
transgender in many societies. That choice has negative consequences for
employers as the transgender employee’s work engagement and job satis-
faction will not be optimal and that person may leave and cause the loss
of valuable competencies, as well as the loss associated with replacement
costs. Furthermore, a decision by a transgender employee to not come
out at work suggests the diversity and inclusion climate of the organi-
zation is not such as will attract other underrepresented persons to the
organization.
Change agents have the opportunity to assist organizations reach their
diversity and inclusion goals by understanding the challenges facing trans-
gender employees who want to transition their gender identity at work.
152 L. K. KLEINTOP
Understanding that structural and interpersonal barriers heighten trans-
gender employees’ concerns about their psychological safety provides the
start for diagnosing the barriers caused by stigmatization in the organi-
zation followed by the creation of intervention plans that can result in
successful transitions and the attainment of diversity and inclusion goals
for the employer.
Transition plans are valuable tools for ensuring a successful transition
that demonstrates inclusiveness and supports not only the transgender
employee but also the organization’s brand as an inclusive, produc-
tive, and innovative employer. Change agents can support achieving
these outcomes by reviewing the organization’s policies for structural
level stigma that create barriers to successful transitions starting with
the organization’s non-discrimination statement. Other structural level
stigma-related barriers to look for include gender specific dress codes
for some or all roles and gendered spaces including restrooms, locker
rooms, and break areas. Forms used in human resources and other func-
tional areas should be examined to ensure that the forms are written
with gender inclusive language. Removing structural level stigma barriers
sends the message to all employees of leadership’s goal to be an inclusive
organization.
Interpersonal stigma barriers also need to be addressed by change
agents. Change agents need to understand the diversity climate of their
organizations including the behaviors of employees related to gender
role expectations. Visiting and talking with employees in their teams and
work units is valuable for understanding the diversity climate. In addi-
tion to the leadership expressing and showing support for a transition,
further suggestions for interventions to decrease interpersonal stigma
barriers include diversity efforts such as those espoused by Dobbin and
Kalev (2016, p. 59). Those authors suggested that diversity programs
can benefit from voluntary programs that do not force people to partici-
pate. To support diversity they proposed involving employees, particularly
managers, with
•self-managed teams involving different groups of people across func-
tional areas of the organization to increase the level of diversity they
experience,
•cross-training opportunities to expose them to different groups of
people,
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 153
•mentoring programs, particularly with underrepresented people,
including transgender people, shown to turn mentors into advocates
for underrepresented employees, and
•diversity task forces or employee resource groups that promote
social accountability as ideas come back to work groups and are
implemented.
These examples from Dobbin and Kalev are longer-term interventions
needing implementation before a transition plan is executed. They should
be implemented as part of a broader diversity program. For a specific tran-
sition plan, though, a program of training that humanizes transgender
people as shown by Thompkins et al. (2015) to reduce transphobia should
be used in the workplace, particularly in the immediate work group in
which the transgender employee is transitioning. And, it is vital that the
leadership of the organization express their support for the transition
process. That expression of support will set expectations for employees
of what standards they will be held to as the transition unfolds. Finally,
following-up with the transgender employee, their manager, and their
workgroup is an important step the change agent needs to enact. Regular
check-ins to see how the transition is unfolding will provide a mechanism
to surface problems as well as giving the employee who is transitioning
an opportunity to provide feedback on the process and what else may be
needed for their support.
Accounting for the sources of stigma that create barriers for trans-
gender employees who want to come out at work is important for
a successful outcome for the employee and the organization. Such an
accounting will bring an understanding of the workplace culture and
diversity climate and surface information a change agent can use to create
a transition climate that will reduce, if not fully remove, the concerns the
transitioning employee has about their psychological safety. When tran-
sitioning employees feel safe in coming out they will do so and create
positive outcomes for themselves and their employer.
Chapter Takeaways
•For employees who are transgender and not yet out to their peers,
supervisors, leadership, or Human Resources at work, coming out
can be a fearful event.
154 L. K. KLEINTOP
•Coming out as transgender is a momentous and challenging deci-
sion. The workplace can be a fearful place for transgender employees,
yet coming out can have both personal and career benefits.
•Transgender people have experienced a wide range of discriminatory
behaviors in workplaces. Fears about coming out at work also include
the fear of having to talk about being transgender and being forced
to explain what it means.
•The targeting of transgender employees by others at work suggests
failures in transition planning. These failures directly impact trans-
gender employees and negatively impact the employment brand of
their organizations.
•Regardless of their goal to be themselves in their lives, trans-
gender people experience some level of apprehension around their
coming out at work if not outright fear of the outcomes of such
behavior. Those disclosing their transgender status must determine
to whom to disclose their transgender status, the best time and
place to disclose, the right amount of information to share, and the
appropriate words to use in their disclosure.
•Transition plans are created for transitioning employees to allow
the organization to maintain predictability and have control over
the process of transitioning. Failure of transition plans can create
significant risks for employers.
•Transgender people, particularly transgender women, create a partic-
ular challenge for organizations when they transition because they do
not conform to usual expectations of gender in society.
•Training programs for co-workers of transitioning employees have
been identified as important parts of transition plans. The focus of
this training is to create supportive group dynamics that lead to
perceived psychological safety through lessening of all employees’
conscious and unconscious anxieties about the transition.
References
American Psychological Association. (2018). Perspective taking. Retrieved from
https://dictionary.apa.org/perspective-taking.
Bennett, S., & Reed, L. (2020, April). INSIGHT: Employer tips
for accommodating non-binary workers. Bloomberg Law. Retrieved
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 155
from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/insight-emp
loyer-tips-for-accommodating-non-binary-workers.
Budge, S. L., Tebbe, E. N., & Howard, K. A. S. (2010). The work experiences of
transgender individuals: Negotiating the transition and career decision-making
processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 377–393.
Cadrain, D. (2009, October). Accommodating sex transformations. HR Maga-
zine, 59–62.
Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure processes model: Under-
standing disclosure decision making and post-disclosure outcomes among
people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin,
136(2), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018193.
Collins, J. C., McFadden, C., Rocco, T. S., & Mathis, M. K. (2015). The
problem of transgender marginalization and exclusion: Critical actions for
human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 14(2),
205–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484315581755.
Deese. K. (2020, March 31). Idaho governor signs two bills aimed at limiting
transgender individuals. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/
homenews/state-watch/490338-idaho-governor-signs-two-bills-aimed-at-lim
iting-transgender-individuals.
Diamond, D. (2020, April 24). Trump team moves to scrap protections for
LGBTQ patients. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/news/
2020/04/24/trump-team-moves-to-scrap-protections-for-lgbtq-patients-
206398.
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business
Review, 94(7/8), 52–60.
Follmer, K. B., Sabat, I. E., & Siuta, R. L. (2019). Disclosure of stigmatized
identities at work: An interdisciplinary review and agenda for future research.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.2402.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2017). Advancing research on structural stigma and
sexual orientation disparities in mental health among youth. Journal of Clin-
ical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 46(3), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15374416.2016.1247360.
Hill, R. J. (2009). Incorporating Queers: Blowback, backlash, and other forms
of resistance to workplace diversity initiatives that support sexual minorities.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 37–53.
Howe, A. (2019, October). Argument analysis: Justices divided on federal
protections for LGBT employees (UPDATED), SCOTUSblog. Retrieved
from https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-analysis-justices-div
ided-on-federal-protections-for-lgbt-employees/.
156 L. K. KLEINTOP
The Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Coming out in the workplace as trans-
gender. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/resources/coming-out-in-the-
workplace-as-transgender.
James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi,
M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. Washington, DC:
National Center for Transgender Equality.
Johanna [spacegirl_j]. (2020, April 2). I am still in the closet: Fear of talking
about it and explaining. Fear of rejection, judgment, harassment, violence…
Fear of change. Fear of dysphoria not getting better. Fear of all the new prob-
lems. And most of that is because of society and I can’t change any of that.
[Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/spacegirl_j/status/124559705
6602746880.
Johnson, I. (2015, December). LGBT diversity: Show me the business case.
Utrecht, The Netherlands: Out Now.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kirk, J., & Belovics, R. (2008). Understanding and counseling transgender
clients. Journal of Employment Counseling, 45, 29–43.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J.C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27 (1), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363.
McCullough, R., Dispenza, F., Chang, C. Y., & Zeligman, M. R. (2019).
Correlates and predictors of anti-transgender prejudice. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity: Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1037/sgd0000334.
Mizock, L., Riley, J., Yuen, N., Woodrum, T. D., Sotilleo, E. A., & Ormerod, A.
J. (2017). Transphobia in the workplace: A qualitative study of employment
stigma. Stigma and Health, 3, 275–282.
Moss-Racusin, C. A. & Rabasco, H. (2018). Reducing gender identity bias
through imagined intergroup contact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48,
457–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12525.
Movement Advance Project. (2020a, April). Conversion “therapy” laws. Retrieved
from https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy.
Movement Advance Project. (2020b, April). Nondiscrimination laws. Retrieved
from https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws.
Nordmarken, S. (2014). Microaggressions. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1,
129–134.
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates. (2014). Workplace gender identity and transi-
tion guidelines. Retrieved from http://outandequal.org/app/uploads/2016/
09/Transition-Guidelines-Full-Edition.pdf.
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences
of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management
Review, 33(1), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.27752724.
8 DECIDING TO BE AUTHENTIC: TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES … 157
Robinson, M. J., van Esch, C., & Bilimoria, D. (2017). Bringing transgender
issues into management education: A call to action. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 16, 300–313.
Rudin, J., Ruane, S., Ross, L., Farro, A., & Billing, T. (2014). Hostile territory:
Employers’ unwillingness to accommodate transgender employees. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion: an International Journal, 33, 721–734.
Sawyer, K., & Thoroughgood, C. (2017). Gender non-conformity and the
modern workplace: New frontiers in understanding and promoting gender
identity expression at work. Organizational Dynamics, 46, 1–8.
Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do workplace gender transitions make gender
trouble? Gender, Work and Organization, 14, 596–618.
Singh, B., Winkel, D. E., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2013). Managing diversity at
work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee
performance? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86,
242–263.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2016, September). Employing trans-
gender workers. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/too
lkits/pages/employingtransgenderworkers.aspx.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2017, June). Managing gender
transition in the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resources
andtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/managinggendertransitioninthew
orkplace.aspx.
Stirba, J. L., Goldstein, Z. G., Gentili, C., Reynolds, H. M., Hill-Meyer, T., &
Scarborough, D. (2014). Employment. In L. Ericson-Schroth (Ed.), Trans
bodies, trans selves: A resource for the transgender community (pp. 155–173).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, S., Burke, L. A., Wheatley, K., & Sompayrac, J. (2011). Effectively facili-
tating gender transition in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 23, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9164-9.
Taranowski, C. J. (2008). Transsexual employees in the workplace. Journal of
Workplace Behavioral Health, 23, 467–477.
Tompkins, T. L., Shields, C. N., Hillman, K. M., & White, K. (2015). Reducing
stigma toward the transgender community: An evaluation of a humanizing
and perspective-taking intervention. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and
Gender Diversity, 2, 34–42.
Turban, J. L., Beckwith, N., Reisner, S. L, & Keuroghlian, A. S. (2020).
Association between recalled exposure to gender identity conversion efforts
and psychological distress and suicide attempts among transgender adults.
[Abstract]. JAMA Psychiatry, 77 (1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1001/jam
apsychiatry.2019.2285.
Walworth, J. (2003). Transsexual workers: An employer’s guide. Bellingham, WA:
Center for Gender Sanity.
158 L. K. KLEINTOP
Weiss, J. T. (2007). Transgender workplace diversity: Policy tools, training
issues and communication strategies for HR and legal professionals.North
Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publishing.
White Hughto, J. M., Reisner, S. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2015). Transgender
stigma and health: A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and
interventions. Social Science and Medicine, 147, 222–231. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010.
PART III
Gender Approaches Across the Disciplines
CHAPTER 9
Gender Diversity, Unconscious Bias,
and Leadership for Organizational
and Planetary Health
Wanda Krause and Elizabeth Hartney
Introduction
Gender diversity is beneficial for companies. The current over-
representation of the dominant (unhealthy male) gender in leadership
roles negates the perspectives of over half of the population in deci-
sions that impact society. Furthermore, leadership discourses which are
grounded in outdated notions of male privilege and superiority, control
through force, and the negation of leadership ideals grounded in stereo-
typically feminine characteristics, are the underlying basis of our current
hierarchical system. This is based on thousands of years of male domi-
nance throughout history personified through archetypes of unhealthy
and abusive males. This is most notably illustrated by the Western image
of God as an all-powerful male—which has been found to have a direct
W. Krause (B)·E. Hartney
Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada
e-mail: Wanda.1krause@royalroads.ca
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_9
161
162 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
influence on the degree to which white men are perceived as fit for lead-
ership (Roberts et al., 2020). It is only in recent decades that women
have, for the most part, held leadership roles. They have done so only
through taking on the mantle of stereotypically male characteristics. To
be clear, the gender characteristics we are discussing are social constructs,
not inherent and inflexible traits attached to male or female biological
sex. Rather, we argue that in order to shift the discourse of leadership
to better represent the totality of society, leadership needs to be exer-
cised by people with a variety of lived experience. Leadership then has
the potential to meet the needs of people across society, not just the
needs of economically privileged men, as has been the case almost exclu-
sively throughout history (until recently). Considering the current state
of the planet, there is an overwhelming need for this shift in discourse,
and concurrent shift in societal values to recognize the need to heal the
planet and its peoples, who have been, and continue to be oppressed and
exploited by the stereotypical values of power, privilege, and profit at any
cost.
What Is Gender Diversity?
Gender diversity is most commonly defined as the equal ratio of men and
women. One will frequently read stories or research about gender diver-
sity in corporate boardrooms and other areas traditionally dominated by
men. While this focus has brought some insight, it is superficial and, in
fact, misrepresents and even marginalizes gender issues. This framing of
gender diversity ignores the intersectional experience of gender discrim-
ination and bias. Furthermore, while understanding the gaps between
men and women is certainly important, much research fails to include
the process toward the disparities that involve many variables. Recog-
nizing and identifying the biases, practices, behaviors, cultures, structures,
and systems that have created inequality between genders is key. The
gender disparities cannot be addressed without first a discussion around
the multiple ways in which people are marginalized. Gender diversity
goes beyond the discussion around men and women and to those with
non-binary gender identities.
Gender diversity as a starting point considers the ratio of men to
women but is furthermore about respecting that there are multiple ways
to identify beyond the male and female binary. While perceived gender is
what people believe one’s gender to be, and while gender roles is what
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 163
one’s society deems is appropriate to men or women, the way in which
one identifies as true is internal to that particular person. Gender inclu-
sion is a higher value in that while diversity is merely acknowledging the
different genders, inclusion is taking further action to create opportuni-
ties for all to be and feel part of the larger whole, be that the organization
or a community. To be effectively gender inclusive, however, requires an
awareness of bias not only in regard to gender but the various other
identities that lead to bias against a person.
Planetary Health and Toxic Leadership
How might greater gender diversity help us achieve planetary health?
In brief, planetary health is defined as “the health of human civilisa-
tion and the state of the natural systems on which it depends” (Horton
&Lo,2015, p. 1921). As noted above, this is not simply a superficial
exercise in meeting gender quotas with no consideration of the charac-
teristics of the people taking on the role of leader. Biological sex, while
influential, is not a true indication of values or behaviors. Indeed, power-
seeking women strive to compete with men on men’s terms, and often
abandon the very characteristics which are stereotypically feminine, and
which might enable them to make a significant contribution to leader-
ship for planetary health, in order to achieve the power they crave. These
women recreate themselves in the image of the unhealthy, abusive male—
choosing competitiveness, greed, ambition, violence, and oppression of
their peers over caring, compassion, nurturance, healing, cooperation,
forgiveness, and inclusion. Such toxic women leaders have focused on
individual and selfish gain over the wellbeing of the community and
have been absorbed by a system that is creating ever greater inequalities
throughout the world rather than reefined it.
Yet not all women leaders have simply mimicked the most oppres-
sive and unethical values and behaviors of male leaders. Some have
taken on leadership roles that are changing the system in the ways that
ideally reflect a greater diversity of perspectives. Research has indicated
that firms with women CEOs or gender diverse boards have stronger
business and equity practices, and gender diverse leadership teams demon-
strate stronger business and equity outcomes than teams characterized
by gender homophily (Cook & Glass, 2018). Similarly, there are many
examples of male leadership and followership that reflect stereotypically
feminine values of compassion and liberation.
164 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
These findings take us beyond superficial feminist arguments, and
demonstrate that diversity is distinctly superior to homophily, regard-
less of gender. In this vein, research shows that just as male dominance
is unhealthy, predominantly female teams can be detrimental, resulting
in greater conservatism, and similar negative effects as homophily on
male-dominated teams: lack of dissent, lower levels of team learning, and
reduced innovation (Cook & Glass, 2018). Conversely, gender diversity at
leadership and followership levels appear to be consistent with promoting
the values of learning organizations (Senge, 1990).
Tokenism
It follows then, that it is naïve to assume that simply placing women
in traditionally male leadership roles without addressing the underlying
power dynamics and values of individuals and organizations will auto-
matically result in improvements. Research indicates that in spite of
improving organizational integrity, employing greater numbers of female
employees can be detrimental to organizations, particularly when the
most senior leader is a woman, for example, by increasing the number
of sexual harassment and sexual violence incidents (Choi et al., 2018),
and promoting lateral violence (Sheridan-Leos, 2008). Female-dominated
workplaces increase the risk of workplace bullying for both women and
under-represented men (Salin, 2015). Furthermore, representation of
women in top corporate leadership may create a false sense of having
addressed the problem of gender diversity, through creating an inaccurate
view of women’s equality and decreasing concern with gender inequality
in other domains (Georgeac & Rattan, 2019). The woman leader may be
little more than a token, without true change in terms of representation
of women or the values that people of different genders could contribute
to organizations, and ultimately, to planetary health.
The importance of greater diversity of genders, however, is not only
related to the value of inclusion as part and parcel of decolonizing our
organizations and workplaces, but also supports endeavors to take steps
toward, for example, Truth and Reconciliation, a process as part of an
overall holistic and comprehensive response to the Indian Residential
School legacy in Canada, with Indigenous peoples, whose marginalized
are foremost women. Recognizing and identifying the biases, practices,
behaviors, cultures, structures, and systems that have created inequality
between genders is key. The gender disparities cannot be addressed
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 165
without first a discussion around the multiple ways in which people are
marginalized.
This work adds to a growing number of studies that recognize the
significance of gender diversity in organizations by investigating the link
between the gender diversity of organizations and performance, well-
being, and consequently, beyond the organization to bringing awareness
to planetary health. We argue that diversity enhances innovation and
the ability of the organization to thrive. We suggest that the impact of
a thriving organization is important, not just to the organization as a
whole or an entity but as a building block for a thriving civilization.
Consequently, the chapter provides recommendations for companies and
organizations to uncover unconscious bias as a first step to recognizing
the multiple ways in which diversity is not enacted, and how to take
the appropriate steps to enhance gender diversity, equality and inclusion,
which includes shifting one’s organizational culture for the health of the
organization and ultimately planetary health.
Hence, our definition of gender diversity goes beyond the discus-
sion around sex and socially prescribed gender roles; it provides a focus
on the need to include those marginalized at the leadership levels and
within organizations through inclusive leadership. It illustrates aware-
ness of the unconscious bias of decision makers to facilitating diversity
(Perry et al., 2015) as a key barrier to achieving gender diversity. Clearly,
socialization processes have created different ways of leading according to
gender identity, which bring therefore different leadership styles, lenses,
and approaches to policy and to how people work and engage with one
another. Finally, we identify the steps to enhancing gender diversity and
inclusion for organizational and planetary health.
This work makes a number of contributions to the literature. First, it
adds to diverse perspectives on the topic. Second, an increased role for
women in organizations has been the subject for a number of years but
without a recognition for diversity of gender, meaning the lines of demar-
cation are not only subject to sex difference, although it is of importance
to discuss increasing women’s participation into the workforce and the
various forms of organization. Third, while the gender gap debate has
been advocated for in view of the value of equality, other ethical reasons to
redress such imbalance adds value to the discussions around racial diver-
sity and more importantly, as a result of bias enacted by the same gender,
inclusion of women by women, as part and parcel of a wider discussion
166 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
around gender bias. Fourth, what is perceived to be an underrepresenta-
tion of women in organizations must be viewed as an ethical issue around
marginalization along gender lines, race, religion, color, and identities.
Fifth, this discussion is of significance to not only organizational health
but planetary health.
The Role of Unconscious Bias
Unconscious bias is defined as “a particular tendency or inclination, espe-
cially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question” (Fre
eDictionary.com). Unconscious (or sometimes referred to as implicit)
bias occurs during rapid and automatic judgments and assumptions
of people and situations, without conscious awareness of the mental
processes making such quick and automatic assessments and conclusions.
Our quick judgments arise from a variety of sources. These arise from
our upbringing, the educational, social, political, or economic environ-
ment that shaped our formative years, our past and current cultural
environments, individual experiences, our internal states, such as fear
or openness to those experiences, which are also shaped by observing
our parents’ reactions to such or similar stimuli, level of exposure to
different peoples and perspectives, and arguably also level of particular
competencies and traits, such as, trust-building, empathy, intercultural
communication, inquiry, humility, curiosity, resilience, and adaptability.
This latter category influencing unconscious bias, thus, comprises capa-
bilities that one might learn to help one peel back the many layers of
unconscious bias that we all have. After all, every one of us has bias.
Unconscious bias happens favorably and unfavorably when we make
judgments regarding promotions between genders in the workplace,
choose which person to offer more training, decide on who is ready to
lead a particular group or project, and who is of lesser competence. It is
important, however, to understand that we can also make judgments with
awareness that we are being biased toward or against a person or group.
It may not be so uncommon to many to have heard a co-worker disparage
a particular ethnic group or make dismissive statements in private about
a particular gender only then in front of a larger audience or the boss to
utter praises of or engage appreciatively with the same mentioned group
or gender. People conceal their true biases to be politically correct or
say or do what is expected by those present, because of fear of personal
consequences.
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 167
Unconscious bias intensifies under conditions perceived as threatening
and is more likely when we are rushed or have cognitive overload.
That is because we reach into the unconscious mind to fill in gaps.
When we are in a rush, we resort to bias. People are grouped not just
according to gender, race, and ethnicity but age, religion, class, sexu-
ality, and disability, among other things. Hence, discrimination against
a particular gender may be compounded for that gender if they are
perceived to have other identities that involve unfavorable bias. Women
can also internalize misogyny and cultural conditioning and have been
shown to be biased against other women (Agrawal, 2018). According to
the “queen bee syndrome,” as defined by Staines, Tavris, and Jayaratne
(1973), women who are individually successful in male-dominated envi-
ronments and attain positions of high status are more likely to endorse
gender stereotypes. According to this view, women they supervise are
viewed as competitors and, as a result, the queen bee expresses nega-
tive attitudes toward them and, thus, tends to discriminate against these
female subordinates (Blau & Devaro, 2007, p. 13). This phenomenon has
been documented by several studies where women are seen to be bullied
more by their female counterparts and managers (Agrawal, 2018).
In a United States survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center with
a nationally representative sample of 4,914 adults, gender bias was found
to have numerous negative consequences. About four in ten working
women (42%) in the United States say they have faced discrimination
on the job because of their gender (Parker & Funk, 2017). This research
found that women are about three times as likely as men to have expe-
rienced sexual harassment at work. However, gender bias cannot be fully
understood without grasping the confounding variables that lead to bias
as well as the intersectional variables that can increase bias. For example,
about three in ten women with a postgraduate degree (29%) say they
have experienced repeated small slights at work because of their gender,
as compared with 18% of women with a bachelor’s degree and 12% of
women with less education (ibid). Black women stand apart in their
reporting of having been passed over for the most important assignments
due to their gender with 22% of employed black women saying this has
happened to them, as compared with 8% of white women and 9% of
Hispanic women (ibid.).
168 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
Gender Diversity for Planetary Health
In the final report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission
on Planetary Health, planetary health is defined as “the achievement of
the highest attainable standard of health, wellbeing, and equity worldwide
through judicious attention to the human systems—political, economic,
and social—that shape the future of humanity and the Earth’s natural
systems that define the safe environmental limits within which humanity
can flourish” (Horton & Lo 2015, p. 1921). In other words, it concerns
the health of human civilization and the state of the natural systems on
which our civilization depends and can thrive. What does gender diversity
mean for planetary health? There are two key dimensions that working
toward gender diversity and inclusion has for supporting and advancing
planetary health.
First, working toward gender diversity and inclusion situates the health
of organizations, as a form of human systems, and the health of societies,
as a form of human organization, as integral to the health of the planet—
the system upon which we all rely. Any form of chaos or imbalance within
the smaller system creates chaos and imbalance within the overall health
and wellbeing of our world. This is a systems perspective that sees all
parts supporting the whole. Hence, we do not see planetary health as
only concerning the natural systems but the system within which we exist.
Therefore, “[t]he threats that our species faces are not abstract physical
risks … The risks we face lie within ourselves and the societies we have
created” (Horton & Lo, 2015, p. 2021), and as a result human cultures
contain both the threat and opportunity for human flourishing.
Horton and Lo (2015, p. 2022) argued that we underestimate the
intricate interplay of environmental, political, and sociocultural resilience,
and quoted Butzer’s argument to focus on “leaders, elites, and ideol-
ogy” as a way of creating planetary health. Our concern with gender
diversity within organizations is not disconnected, but rather part of a
larger concern for human and civilizational flourishing, here viewed as
of significance to planetary health. From this wider systems perspective,
gender diversity is not merely viewed as a rights issue for marginalized
genders. Planetary health is a global health issue (Demaio & Rockström,
2015, p. 36). The final report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet
Commission on Planetary Health emphasizes the need to work toward
the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among several key
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 169
goals, for planetary health. The special event on Women Leaders for Plan-
etary Health at the UN Climate Summit (COP25) in Madrid in 2019
was a new initiative of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies
(IASS) focused on women’s empowerment as prerequisite for addressing
our current climate crisis and effectively implementing the UN Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs). However, to date, very little has been
contributed from civil society research, research on organizational well-
being and particularly gender, although SDG 5 specifically relatesto
gender. Hence, in way of bridging the link between gender in organi-
zations and planetary health, we seek to support a better understanding
of gender imbalance in organizations to offer concrete recommendations
about the kind of leadership needed for organizational and planetary
health.
Second, working toward gender diversity and inclusion through inclu-
sive leadership offers us greater understanding around the concept of
harmony. The dominant perspective on gender disparity and inequality
offers a binary view based on sex, excluding and marginalizing the deeper
and holistic understanding or worldview of planetary health and harmony
through the balancing of genders along the feminine and masculine. It
also excludes the different ways of looking at and interpreting equality
and equity, as well, dignity, harmony, and balance. The complex issue of
balance between opposing forces can also be expressed in terms of the
principle: “balance between feminine and masculine energy” (Arahma-
iani & Campbell, 2019, p. 204). These authors argue that every culture
can make valuable contributions and valuing difference and supporting
equality make for a bright and sustainable future (p. 208).
The feminine and masculine principles are also important. Unhealthy
masculinity is not just harmful to men and society as a whole—it’s also
harmful to the planet (Brough, 2017). While this specific study focused
on men, we would argue two important points. One, the unhealthy
masculinity or masculine is toxic and not confined to one sex. This
unhealthy masculinity that is fearful of the healthy feminine can reside in
women too. For example, women in the “queen-bee” theory or women
who feel they have had to fight so hard to get to their positions of
power and take action to ensure their female subordinates experience just
as much difficulty breaking through the “glass-ceiling” are also uncom-
fortable with supporting feminine expression among female and male
employees. Consequently, this fear, or even hate, of feminine power,
then, requires a mindset change around the essences that are of value
170 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
to the harmony, balance, and health of the organization. Equally, fear,
and hate, of healthy masculine power requires a mindset change. Femi-
nist approaches that bash men and throw all men into a category of those
to be wary of and fight to get equal rights is not just harmful to women
and society as a whole—it is also harmful to the planet.
This imbalance requires healing. However, Western mindsets focused
on binaries is resistant to a holistic approach to transformation. A holistic
approach or framework, however, is reliant upon the principle of healing
as the way forward to health, harmony, and sustainability. A yin-yang
approach, that appreciates the healthy interplay of supports between the
masculine and feminine, or, in taking an Indigenous approach, through
what Atleo (2011) refers to as hahuulism which “can be defined by the
struggle for balance and harmony” and which requires what he refers to
as “protocols of Tsawalk,” which are agreements “to move competitive
relationships away from conflict and towards harmony” (p. 156) provide
examples of inclusion in orientation. We require a framework that recog-
nizes inclusive approaches, including primarily holistic approaches, and
those which enables a healthy masculinity and healthy femininity to shine
and co-create in their multiple forms, and to engender transformation for
organizational and planetary health.
Leadership for Organizational and Planetary Health
Inclusive leadership is concerned first and foremost with inclusion, both
in its processes and the ends for which it strives (Ryan, 2006,p.3).
Inclusive leadership focuses on relationships that promote mutual benefit
(Hollander, 2008, p. 3). Here, inclusive leadership will be defined as lead-
ership that enables individuals and collectives to be recognized, respected,
dignified, whole and well, and their interconnections enhanced for mutual
benefit. Key principles of inclusive leadership are working “with” others
who are different, exercising the opposite of homophily, which is the
essence of inclusion. They include actively involving others in decision-
making, which is the essence of self-determination; strengthening and
valuing relationships and connections, social justice, plurality, fairness and
welfare, which form the essence of civil society. It is, therefore, imperative
to understand the kind of leadership that is generative and enabling of
diversity and inclusion for organizational and planetary health.
A discussion around what both diversity and inclusion constitute must
take place around how to address power imbalance. This includes conflict,
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 171
exclusion, marginalization, colonization, imperialism, imbalance of “haves
and have nots,” and the underlying power and economic and organi-
zational structures that continue to create barriers to a healthy life for
all. These anti-inclusive forces may be echoed at an organizational level,
through nepotism, favoritism, cliques, and workplace bullying, which may
be implicitly rewarded through practices which encourage competition
over collaboration. Individual health and flourishing is about personal
happiness; however, personal happiness or feeling good also relates to or is
influenced by the degree to which an individual feels they are equal, have
equal rights, equal access, such as to promotion, have means for equity,
feel dignified, feel respected, have the means, capacity and context for
living and working purposefully, have choices, opportunities, and enjoy
safety and security, among myriad factors that contribute to how an
individual defines their wellbeing.
The prescriptive advantage of inclusive leadership is, that being inclu-
sive, it does not place the burden on individuals to take care of themselves,
but emphasizes instead the relational and structural nature shaping a
healthy whole (Ryan, 2006, p. 6). The subject of individual and orga-
nizational health is a collective one. One’s health isn’t merely a personal
goal that could be achieved passively; it is the responsibility of the organi-
zation (People Diagnostics, 2019, p. 3). When people are excluded, they
often do not have the resources, tools, or skills to create their own well-
ness, or the means to acquire them. Purposeful inclusion, then, requires
that the system change (Ryan, 2006,p.6).
For an environment to be inclusive, people must believe that they are
treated fairly, valued for who they are, and included in core decision-
making (Gottfredson, 2019). Whether organizational participation and
leadership or larger systems participation and governance, leadership that
is inclusive means that leaders acknowledge power structures and that
particular contexts and environments influence how well one feels. Hence,
the prerogative of an inclusive leader is also acknowledging context that
shapes wellbeing and health. This includes others who are marginalized
from power structures of inequality, and means taking a step beyond mere
inclusion into a hierarchy of power relations but toward plurality. Inclu-
sion requires the transformation of the environment of imbalance and
inequity for inclusion to shift into plurality; that is, plurality of individual
and collective participation and contribution for meaningful co-creation.
172 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
It must be recognized that employee mental health can be impacted at
work from both the design of work (e.g., workload, co-worker and super-
visor support, autonomy), and individual factors (e.g., practicing self-care,
nurturing positive relationships, savoring positive experiences). The devel-
opment of relationships with particular people can be influenced by not
only bias against a particular gender but that gender in addition to other
intersectional identities outside one’s usual in-group. Psychological health
and cultural safety at work is a shared responsibility (People Diagnos-
tics, 2019, p. 3). In connecting the benefit of individual health to the
organization as a whole, and to planetary health, the subject of health
becomes a concern and imperative for leaders within organizations, within
the state, region—and despite these seemingly neat divisions, categories
and borders, health considers a global view of leadership and followership
for mutual benefit and wellbeing.
Participation is not apolitical. It should entail leadership that seeks
to recognize, respect, dignify, and make whole and healthy. It should
be inclusive and aim to be transformative and purposeful. Embracing
the ethic of human flourishing and planetary health and the constituent
parts will be one of the greatest challenges for the inclusive leader, but
gives promise of a future that is sustainable and hopeful of possibili-
ties. It is, therefore, of significance to leadership research and work to
understand how best to support individual and planetary health and
collaboratively create change on the individual, collective, and planetary
levels. The concept of inclusive leadership enables us to better secure
health for the benefit of individuals, the whole, and so for the common
good. We assert that by extension these principles entail a broader sense
of health—individual, communal, and planetary.
A Roadmap for Greater Inclusion of Gender Diversity
Protocols, or a roadmap, “are hammered out of apparent contradictions
over an appropriate period of time” (Atleo, 2011, p. 156). For greater
inclusion of gender diversity, we suggest a framework based on an inte-
gral model and leadership that is inclusive. We adapt the integral model,
originally developed by Wilber (1997), to understand and work with
key dimensions of reality. “Integral” means comprehensive, balanced,
and inclusive (Wilber, Patten, Leonard, & Morelli, 2008, p. 27). This
model has four areas or quadrants to illustrate at least four key perspec-
tives: (1) the individual subjective (including bias, worldviews, masculine
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 173
and feminine health, as well mental and spiritual health), (2) the indi-
vidual behaviors we can observe, (3) collective norms and culture (as #1,
less easy to observe), and (4) larger macro systems (such as planetary
health). We can plan an inclusive leader’s steps within and across each
area or quadrant that entail a systematic, linear, circular, and emergent
process. With this framework, we can work with an overview of health
that helps us see how, depending on which area we are focusing, we can
map overlap, connections, and interdependencies. This framework, thus,
enables us a process for change that is inclusive of the different dimen-
sions of wellbeing and health and supports evolution in each dimension
that is interdependent. It rests on the individual and collective approach
and worldview to see ourselves as interconnected, interdependent, and,
at our best, co-developing with each other (Schieffer & Lessem, 2016,
p. 15). The following presents steps for an inclusive leader’s strategic
plan for enhancing gender equality and one that would recognize the
intricacies of bias from an intersectional lens, as would be focused on an
organization.
Step 1: Begin developing inclusive leadership competencies first. Before
leading others you must begin to lead yourself. The process of leading
change often omits the idea that transforming leaders is part of the overall
transformation process (Metcalf, 2013, p. 11). Develop greater awareness
around who you are, which involves peeling back your unconscious bias.
These are the particular biases we all have and with which we interpret
and make meaning of the world. How you reason and the logic you use
depend on the values you aspire to and currently live. An insecure leader
may feel threatened by their subordinates, whether, for example, based on
their being male or female, or gender fluid, or additionally connected with
further identities, and, thus, the leader may consciously or unconsciously
undermine their progress, in an effort to retain superiority. As mentioned
above, according to the “queen bee syndrome” women who are individ-
ually successful in male-dominated environments and attain positions of
high status are more likely to endorse gender stereotypes. Hence, aware-
ness of actions that lead to inclusion and exclusion are not related to men
in particular.
Thus, an inclusive leader continually aspires to develop their intelli-
gence and consciousness “with a sufficient altitude that they gain the
widest lenses and new capacities” (Hamilton, 2008, p. 115). An inclusive
leader is one who embodies the values and competencies of an inclusive
and planetary citizen and steward, and continually works on expanding
174 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
into capacity to hold greater perspectives. These are leaders who speak
about matters that impact the whole planet, can catalyze interconnected-
ness, and improve the flow of products, profits, people, priorities, energy,
security, and resources for all (ibid. pp. 116–118). One might consider
reflecting on the values one actually does embody and set a vision for
oneself of who one wants to become and the values they want to espouse
with goals for evolving into embodying these and presencing these in
one’s life, work and sphere of influence. How one evaluates and co-creates
human flourishing and health with others will hugely depends on this first
step.
Step 2: Evaluate the state of affairs. There are multiple methods an
inclusive leader can use to evaluate where an individual, team, organiza-
tion, and/or community is at on a scale measuring, for example, health.
This stage involves collecting the information one needs to set direction
for greater health of the organization. The process involves mapping a
starting point from within the organization for creating and enhancing
human and planetary flourishing and health and which entails mapping
that starting point at (1) the individual and subjective area, (2) the behav-
ioral and competency area, (3) the culture and communal area, and (4)
the systems or planetary.
Actions in this second area aim to uncover behaviors, practices, habits,
or techniques used, etc., that are supporting gender diversity or under-
mining diversity, thus, the health of the organization. For creative,
exploratory and positive momentum, one would want to lead inquiry
into what is working for enhancing gender diversity and healthy states
and behavior. However, appreciation for what is working cannot run the
risk of minimizing what is not working and posing barriers to greater
health. Inquiry does need to uncover what and where needs to shift in
behavior, actions, techniques, and practice. Thus, inquiry in the third
area would work toward understanding and learning what collective
needs for health exist. Here the “collective” might mean different groups
with different understandings of what the groups need to feel healthy,
culturally safe, respected, balanced, be included, dignified, and work
productively without fear of discrimination. These need to be explored.
Inquiry in the fourth area involves exploring the systems factors that
relate to unequal relationships, processes of colonization and decoloniza-
tion, and, thus, the structures that oppress some and privilege others,
and policies, laws, and regulations that are similarly differentially disabling
and enabling. It is important, if not more important, to be attentive to
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 175
informal practices, protocol, or “unwritten laws” that are not necessarily
part of official policy, laws, or governance structures.
Step 3: Prioritize and plan. Prioritizing and planning, for the inclu-
sive leader, involves co-decision-making with others and setting direction
together. Such processes entail that the leader is in service of the vision
and mission of the organization and its people and puts health front and
center. To prioritize, the inclusive leader uses data collection methods
that rely on collaboration and engagement to come to prioritization and
planning. Examples are world café or focus group methods. These are
good examples because of the collaborative objective as process. How the
groups are divided depends on the gaps and issues identified around diver-
sity and inclusion, particularly paying close attention with an intersectional
lens to gender discrimination, and whether the diverse groups wish to
form around those gaps and issues or whether they see utility in forming
groups representing of diversity in different or newer and evolving ways.
Changing organizational culture is one of the hardest tasks for any
leader. But when we have a shared understanding of what individual and
planetary health means to us as individuals and as a collective in an orga-
nization, and have critical social supports in place, we can be well placed
to keep disciplined in reaching and maintaining health and inclusion as
values. All cultures are based on value systems and to create change in
any value system takes a common framework, support and discipline until
health, enhanced gender diversity, and inclusion are intrinsic values. There
will be times ahead in an increasingly turbulent world, more immediately
as a consequence of COVID-19, when the market share sees even greater
competition, but that is when we will need to rely on individual health
and engaged individuals to make it through. Individual health and gender
diversity is the new model for economic growth leading organizations and
planetary health.
Step 4: Create supports. The ability to set direction and make any
headway will be contingent upon the inclusive leader’s active support.
Inclusive leaders will communicate to the wider community the objec-
tive to put health front and center as a value and practice. As a result,
leadership will be responsible for including health as an objective in
communications, priorities, espoused values, policies, and programs. What
health among all groups and individuals will look like would be under
development and co-lead with a committee; however, to get traction
involves putting the goal of health on the radar and providing structural
supports. Creating time to work on a plan for individual spiritual, mental,
176 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
and emotional health demonstrates seriousness. Creating a budget shows
commitment and capacity. Ensuring processes for health that are officially
recognized will be significant too; for example, risk, injury, promotion, or
bullying mitigation steps or policies.
Putting wellbeing on the radar means the leader is attuned to the
culture of individual and organizational health in the organization as iden-
tified in Step 2. This is where incremental shifting needs to take place
simultaneously in the communications and work with the committee,
individuals at all levels of an organization—those who are impacted by
policy and programs and those who have influence and power by virtue
of their positional roles in the organization, as well as key stakeholders,
and those who are in a position to and are willing to champion the action
plan for wellbeing.
Creating supports holistically means being attuned to and responsive
to behaviors, as they show up, that support or pose barriers to health,
diversity, and inclusion. This means being aware of multiple collectives
and their perhaps different if not conflicting needs or goals, to that of the
collective, within and outside the organization. For the latter, the inclu-
sive leader is mindful that actions, choices, and behaviors can potentially
contribute to in-group (i.e., the organization one leads) interests that
exclude and may even harm those considered as outside the group. The
inclusive leader seeks to build and expand on what is working to extend
extraterritorial (inter-organizational) collaborations and networking for
the strengthening of relationships and support for addressing broader
planetary issues. Creating supports means leading health, diversity, and
inclusion by example and being aware of individual needs also to ensure
equity.
Step 5: Create the organizational and planetary health plan of action.
The plan of action is dreaming big about what the planet would look
like in a healthy, harmonious state, and designing an appropriate learning
and change strategy. What this plan looks like is co-created and emergent
with the criteria of health developed into higher levels and betterment
considering all four areas or perspectives listed above. It will continue
to be iterated and developed through tracking and evaluating transfor-
mation within the organization. The strategy to embed health will entail
that the steps, strategies, and process are sustainable and reinforced by
mapping those supports across the four areas. The plan of action can
look different depending on the organization. Hence, no plan created
can be plugged into a new setting and expected to work. Further, the
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 177
agreed upon priorities, plan, and strategy to embed wellbeing will require
ongoing commitment, conversation, refining, and repeating these five
steps. This takes time and commitment to the process and vision for
ensuring diversity and inclusion.
Chapter Takeaways
The takeaways from this chapter that we hope to offer is for greater
awareness of the need for gender diversity within organizations.
•Enhanced gender diversity is critical not merely for the sake of
gender rights or a feminist objective to decrease the gender gap
between the sexes in organizations.
•This chapter offered a deeper understanding of the interrelated-
ness between individual and collective health within organizations
as aligned to the impact that human flourishing has on the outside
world, in particularly what concerns planetary health.
•Recognizing and identifying the biases, practices, behaviors, cultures,
structures, and systems that have created inequality between genders
is key.
•Planetary health cannot be addressed without first a discussion
around the multiple ways that chaos, disorder, and disharmony is
entrenched.
•The gender disparities cannot be addressed without first a discussion
around the multiple ways in which people are marginalized.
•This chapter offered an inclusive framework to map how to create
transformation toward greater diversity, inclusion and individual and
collective health within the organization. Such transformation puts
the organization and those within the organization in a position of
being a healthy pillar for supporting and evolving a trajectory of
mindful inclusion of all for a better world, a world that can sustain
all those living upon it. We hope that a planetary ethic can evolve
through the conscious and deliberate shifts in thinking, behavior,
collective action, and structures within the organization as one major
and essential step.
178 W. KRAUSE AND E. HARTNEY
References
Agrawal. (2018, December). Here is how unconscious bias holds women back.
Forbes.https://www.forbes.com/sites/pragyaagarwaleurope/2018/12/17/
here-is-how-unconscious-bias-holds-women-back/#2832148e2d4f.
Atleo, R. (Umeek). (2011). Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth worldview. Vancouver:
UBC Press.
Arahmaiani, & Campbell, S. (2019). Balancing feminine and masculine
energy. Southeast of Now: Directions in Contemporary and Modern Art in
Asia, 3(1), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1353/sen.2019.0015.
Blau, F., & Davero, J. (2007). New evidence on gender differences in promotion
rates: An empirical analysis of a sample of new hires. Industrial Relations—A
Journal of Economy and Society, 46(3), 511–550.
Brough, A. (2017, December). Men resist green behaviour as unmanly. Scientific
American.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-resist-green-beh
avior-as-unmanly/
Demaio, A. R., & Rockström, J. (2015). Human and planetary health: Towards
a common language. Lancet, 386(10007), 36–37.
Choi, H., Hong, S., & Lee, J. W. (2018). Does increasing gender repre-
sentativeness and diversity improve organizational integrity? Public Personnel
Management, 47 (1), 73–92.
Georgeac, O., & Rattan, A. (2019). Progress in women’s representation in
top leadership weakens people’s disturbance with gender inequality in other
domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(8), 1435–1453.
Glass, C., & Cook, A. (2018). Do women leaders promote positive change?
Analyzing the effect of gender on business practices and diversity initiatives.
Human Resource Management, 57 (4), 823–837.
Gottfredson, R. (2019). Understanding different leadership types and styles.
Retrieved from https://www.ryangottfredson.com/blog/2019/1/21/what-
is-inclusive-leadership-amp-why-is-it-important
Hamilton, M. (2008). Integral city: Evolutionary intelligences for the human hive.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Hollander, E. P. (2008). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower rela-
tionship. London: Taylor & Francis.
Horton, R., & Lo, S. (2015). Planetary health: A new science for exceptional
action. Lancet, 386(10007), 1921–1922.
Perry, S. P., Murphy, M. C., & Dovidio, J. F. (2015). Modern prejudice: Subtle,
but unconscious? The role of bias awareness in Whites’ perceptions of personal
and others’ biases. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 64–78.
Parker, K., & Funk, C. (2017). Gender discrimination comes in many forms
for today’s working women. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.
org/fact-tank/2017/12/14/gender-discrimination-comes-in-many-forms-
for-todays-working-women/.
9 GENDER DIVERSITY, UNCONSCIOUS BIAS … 179
People Diagnostics. (2019). Flourishdx: A comprehensive approach to workplace
psychological health, safety, and wellbeing. An implementation guide. Retrieved
from PwC Report.
Roberts, S. O., Weisman, K., Lane, J. D., Williams, A., Camp, N. P., Wang, M.,
Robison, M., Sanchez, K., & Griffiths, C. (2020). God as a White man: A
psychological barrier to conceptualizing Black people and women as leadership
worthy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.https://doi-org.ezproxy.
royalroads.ca/10.1037/pspi0000233.supp.
Ryan, J. (2006). Leadership and policy in schools. Taylor & Francis Group, 5,
3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500483995.
Salin, D. (2015). Risk factors of workplace bullying for men and women: The
role of the psychosocial and physical work environment. Scandinavian Journal
of Psychology, 56, 69–77.
Schieffer, A., & Lessem, R. (2016). Integral development: Realising the trans-
formative potential of individuals, organisations and societies. London: Rout-
ledge.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. Doubleday.
Sheridan-Leos, N. (2008). Understanding lateral violence in nursing. Clinical
Journal of Oncology Nursing, 12(3), 399–403.
Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1973). The Queen Bee Syndrome. In
C. Tavris (Ed.), The female experience. Del Mar, CA: CRM Books.
Steffen, S. L., & Rezmovits, J. (2019). Introduction. In S. L. Steffen, J.
Rezmovits, S. Trevenna, & S. Rappaport (Eds.), Evolving leadership for
collective wellbeing. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Wilber, K. (1997). An integral theory of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 4(1), 71–92.
Women Leaders for Planetary Health. https://www.womenleadersforplanetary
health.org/.
Wilber, K., Patten, T., Leonard, A., & Morelli, M. (2008). Integral life practice:
A 21st century blueprint for physical healthy, emotional balance, mental clarity,
and spiritual awakening. Boston: Integral Books.
CHAPTER 10
Working More Effectively with Non-binary
Colleagues
Wiley C. Davi and Duncan H. Spelman
Introduction
For a year now, you have been working in the cubicle adjacent to Kevin’s.
While most of your interactions focus on helping each other learn the
ins and outs of the new prototyping software recently acquired by your
company, you have also gotten to know a bit about him personally. When
at home, he spends most of his free time playing video games. He has
been with his girlfriend Nyla, who he refers to often as “the wife,” for
10 years. Whenever your team goes out to lunch, he orders the same
sandwich: a turkey and avocado on ciabatta.
This chapter draws from our book Leading with Uncommon Sense: Slowing
down, looking inward, taking action. Springer Nature (2020)
W. C. D a v i ( B)
Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA
e-mail: WDAVI@bentley.edu
D. H. Spelman
Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_10
181
182 W. C. DAVI AND D. H. SPELMAN
One day, you get an email from Kevin that he has sent to the entire
company. It reads, “With the support of Human Resources and my boss
Charlene, I am writing to let you know that while I have been going
by the pronouns “he, him, and his,” I have recently decided to be more
authentic at work, so I will be going by the gender-neutral pronouns
they/them/theirs to better reflect my genderqueer identity. I appreciate
your support.” As you finish reading Kevin’s email, you realize that he—
you catch yourself and replace the pronoun—they are hard at work in
their cubicle right next to you.
Moments like this are occurring in the workplace with greater
frequency, and companies are taking notice (Noguchi, 2019; Sawyer &
Thoroughgood, 2017). Much is being written on the experiences of
transgender people at work (Dietert, & Dentice, 2009; Sheridan, 2009).
More recently, scholarship is emerging on a specific subcategory of the
transgender community—gender non-binary employees (Boncori, Sicca,
& Bizjak, 2019). Gender non-binary refers to individuals who do not
identify simply as a man or as a woman. Gender non-binary people may
identify entirely outside of these categories, or they may see themselves as
a bit of both or even somewhere in between. The number of individuals
who identify as gender non-binary is increasing, and companies are recog-
nizing the need to create more inclusive workspaces (Flores, Herman,
Gates, & Brown, 2017).
Transgender 101
Before going much further, we’d like to take a moment to talk about
terminology. First, it’s important for all of us to keep in mind that while
we can do a Google search for a definition of a term, when we are
discussing terms pertaining to our identities, these terms are personal
and individual to each of us. For example, one person’s use of the term
genderqueer may be somewhat different from someone else’s (and, we
know terms will undoubtedly evolve). Thus, here we will define terms as
we currently understand them but encourage you to engage in dialogue
with colleagues whenever possible to avoid assuming people are using
terms the same way you are. While there is an extensive list of key terms
pertaining to gender identity, we are limiting our explanations to terms
we use in this chapter. We encourage you to consult other sources as
needed.
10 WORKING MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH NON-BINARY COLLEAGUES 183
The terms “gender” and “sex,” while often used interchangeably,
are distinct. “Sex” refers to biological differences between males and
females, such as sex chromosomes and sex organs. “Gender,” or more
aptly “gender identity,” pertains to how individuals perceive themselves.
Gender attribution refers to the identities we ascribe to people, and much
of this is based on an individual’s gender expression, which includes
their physical appearance, mannerisms, behaviors, and other observable
external attributes (Speer, 2005). Historically, most societies have oper-
ated from a gender binary—man and woman. Fortunately, in some
cultures we have moved beyond the binary, and people can identify as
men, women, neither, both, and more.
The term “transgender” serves as an umbrella term to refer to both
people whose gender identity (that is, how they self-identify) is different
from the sex they were assigned at birth, and people whose gender iden-
tity does not fit the traditional man or woman binary. We will be focusing
in this chapter on the gender identities that go beyond the binary. Indi-
viduals with such identities may use the terms gender non-conforming,
gender non-binary, genderqueer, or gender fluid (or some other term
that they choose) to describe themselves.
The term “cisgender” refers to individuals whose gender identity aligns
with the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, Duncan identifies
as a man and was assigned male at birth; he is a cisgender man. Wiley,
however, was assigned female at birth but does not identify as a woman.
Rather, Wiley identifies as genderqueer. For them, neither category—man
or woman—feels quite right, so the term genderqueer establishes a space
outside of those categories. The term also reflects their willingness to be
seen by some as a man and by others as a woman. What is most impor-
tant to keep in mind here is that while Duncan, Wiley, and any of us
was assigned a sex, we each choose, discover and/or determine our own
gender identity.
Our Purpose
In this chapter, our primary goal is to shine a light on the experiences
of non-binary people in the workplace and offer some resources that
could increase your comfort and effectiveness working with non-binary
colleagues, whether you fit easily into the gender binary or are non-binary
yourself. We recognize that every person’s gender identity is unique, so
we encourage you to tailor our suggestions accordingly.
184 W. C. DAVI AND D. H. SPELMAN
To create more inclusive workplaces for gender non-conforming
colleagues, a familiar approach is to think about their needs and make
any corresponding adjustments in the work environment. For example,
a recent Harvard Business Review article, “Creating a Trans-Inclusive
Workplace,” details a variety of approaches that organizations can use
to improve the environment for transgender employees (Thoroughgood,
Sawyer, & Webster, 2020). Organizations have altered the language in
HR policies, created gender-neutral bathrooms, or altered the options
for self-identification on forms. While we commend these and similar
approaches and understand their benefits, we wish to emphasize the
importance of understanding ourselves and how we operate within
these spaces. In other words, paying attention to our environments is
important, but we must also pay attention to ourselves.
Similarly, resources designed to improve the experiences of trans-
gender, genderqueer, or other marginalized people often emphasize
developing a deep understanding of those individuals’ experiences. While
it is certainly important to know about the people with whom you work
as fully and deeply as possible, understanding yourself is an essential first
step to being a good coworker. Quite often, for example, when we find
ourselves in a situation like the one with your coworker Kevin that opens
this chapter, the impulse may be to try to think of the correct thing
to say or how to respond appropriately to our colleague. However, we
propose that before taking any action, you first pause to examine what is
happening in you.
By understanding ourselves, we suggest, we are better able to under-
stand and interact with others. In hopes of helping you increase your
effectiveness with non-binary colleagues, we begin with the suggestion
that each of us is more successful interpersonally if we first do work
on ourselves intrapersonally (Davi & Spelman, 2020). To do this work
of understanding ourselves, we suggest a two-step approach (Davi &
Spelman, 2020). The first step is to pause. Pausing allows us to step back
and take a deeper look at ourselves. When we pause, we give ourselves the
time to engage in the second step—introspect. Introspecting allows us to
ask questions of ourselves to examine such things as what is out of our
awareness, how our emotions are influencing us, how social identities are
in play, and how we may be seeing things through a desire for certainty.
10 WORKING MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH NON-BINARY COLLEAGUES 185
Pause
When we pause, we allow ourselves time to choose where we focus our
attention; it’s paying attention with purpose. It often requires that we
interrupt the flow of events to jump off the proverbial merry-go-round
in order to give ourselves time to look more closely.
Sometimes we may need to pause in the moment as something is
unfolding before us. At those times, we recommend something as simple
as taking a breath. Returning to our opening scenario, after reading
Kevin’s email and before sliding your chair over to their cubicle, you
might take a deep breath. This one act has a calming effect on the brain
and essentially signals that everything is fine (Kozub, 2017). Another
option is to move around a bit. Again, using our opening example,
consider closing your email and taking a short walk. By doing this, you
shift the focus and give yourself time to engage in deeper reflection
and introspect, which we discuss more in depth further on. While these
suggestions may seem obvious at first glance, pausing requires a conscious
choice, and it often makes a significant difference in our ability to respond.
Sometimes we don’t have our wits about us enough to pause in the
moment, and we can come away feeling dissatisfied or unsettled. That
gnawing feeling is also a signal that it’s a good time to pause. In those
moments, find a few minutes to slow down and carve out a space to look
inwards. When it comes to experiencing these feelings in the workplace,
it’s worth reminding ourselves that we almost always have the option to
go back and revisit something, especially if it is an exchange with someone
with whom we have an ongoing relationship. We can pause, think things
through, and then go back and address it again.
We can also be proactive about pausing by building it into our daily
routine. One useful way of doing this is to develop a meditation practice.
There are a wide variety of approaches to meditation, but they all involve
consciously slowing down and interrupting the flow of daily events—
pausing (Valcour, 2015). Another proactive approach is to schedule time
to pause; for example, you might use the recurring function in your elec-
tronic calendar to schedule pauses at the beginning of each day, week,
month, or year (although we highly advocate pausing much more often
than once a year!). For those of us with the ability to go further, we can
build in personal retreats for longer periods of pausing. Finally, getting
a good night’s sleep is a way in which we can pause daily. Sleep is an
essential way to refresh or reset our brains (Walker, 2017). It helps us
186 W. C. DAVI AND D. H. SPELMAN
make sense of our experiences and it allows us to moderate our emotions.
“Sleeping on it” really does work.
By pausing, we give ourselves a chance to pay closer attention to
ourselves, which, ultimately helps us to be more effective with our
colleagues. More importantly, pausing allows you a moment to do what
we call introspect—to look at what is going on inside you.
Introspect
Imagine that you are participating in a divisional meeting. The company’s
new CMO has been invited to speak to the division to provide an update
on the recent rebranding campaign. During the Q&A, a colleague poses a
question to the CMO by stating, “Sir, you have provided a clear outline of
our recent efforts…” After the CMO responds, another colleague follows
up with a statement addressed to all of you and in the comment refers
to the CMO as “she.” You immediately notice people stealing less than
furtive glances at each other.
For people who are gender non-conforming, this scenario is quite
common. For those of us who are cisgender, the impulse may be to focus
on what is happening in the moment for the non-conforming individual.
While we appreciate any feelings of care or concern for a colleague, we
advocate looking first at what is happening in you.
When introspecting, we suggest using the following four reminders to
help you explore what is happening internally: be humble, be emotional,
be “impolite,” be uncertain. We will also offer a question to ask yourself
that accompanies each reminder.
Be humble. While it can be unsettling to admit, research has proven
that there is much that goes on outside of our conscious awareness
(Wilson, 2004). To keep that in mind, we offer the reminder to be
humble. To be humble, ask yourself, “What is out of my awareness?”
For example, what assumptions may have been out of your awareness
when you were listening to the CMO? Most basically, did you assume you
knew the CMO’s gender? How might your internalization of the gender
binary have prevented you from considering that both terms could be
accurate? Might it have been unconsciously upsetting to you to imagine
the CMO as gender non-conforming?
Or imagine this scenario: You reluctantly decide to attend your
company’s annual summer barbeque. While there, your colleague Joanna
introduces you to a person whose feminine gender expression leads you
10 WORKING MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH NON-BINARY COLLEAGUES 187
to say, “Hi, nice to meet you. You must be Joanna’s sister.” Joanna turns
to you and says, “They aren’t my sister; they’re my spouse.”
The impulse to attribute a gender to people often happens so auto-
matically that we don’t even have time to notice that it happens. Think,
for example, of the times someone has welcomed you into a restaurant
or store with the words, “Hello, sir” or “Welcome, ma’am.” In a split
second, they somehow decided what your gender was. Because the gender
binary is so deeply internalized in most of us, we rarely think beyond the
two categories. For example, our brains rarely go to “genderqueer.”
As an aside, it’s also interesting to consider why “you” in the barbeque
example decided that Joanna’s genderqueer spouse must be her sister
rather than her spouse. Were you embedded in not only the gender binary
but also in the assumption that Joanna’s spouse must be a man?
The reminder to be humble helps us to pay attention to what is out of
our awareness and to be mindful that unconscious forces may be influ-
encing conscious thoughts, words, and actions. Psychologist Jonathan
Haidt uses the wonderful image of a rider on the back of an elephant
to illustrate how our conscious and unconscious operate (Haidt, 2006).
What often unsettles people is that the conscious mind is merely the rider.
Having unconscious forces operating out of our awareness in and of
itself is not a problem. In fact, those operations in our brain play impor-
tant roles in our everyday actions. For example, unconscious processes
include procedural memory and automatic processing. Ever y time you
tie your shoes, for example, you likely give it no thought. When you
find yourself suddenly driving in a rainstorm, you turn on the wind-
shield wipers thanks to unconscious processes (those same processes likely
influence you to also turn down the radio).
Our need to be humble, then, is less about paying attention to those
helpful automatic responses and more about investigating other uncon-
scious processes, such as how our perceptions are formed, how our
memories operate, and how we make decisions.
One unconscious process worthy of our attention is bias, which
operates largely out of our awareness. Unconscious biases are those asso-
ciations, prejudices, or stereotypes that linger out of our awareness and
influence our thoughts and actions. Unconscious bias around gender
non-conforming identity can play out in any number of ways and on a
continuum that ranges from benign to brutal.
This unconscious bias operates in members of the LGBTQ commu-
nity, as well. Wiley recalls a day when they and their spouse Michele were
188 W. C. DAVI AND D. H. SPELMAN
driving along, and Wiley, after seeing someone walking on the sidewalk,
asked, “Is that a man or a woman?” Michele turned to Wiley and said,
“You of all people are asking the question that way?” Wiley’s unconscious
bias influenced them to see only the two options.
To be humble, we highly recommend continually asking ourselves,
“What is out of my awareness?”
Be emotional. A second introspect reminder focuses on our feelings.
Our emotions provide us with valuable information, but we often fail
to pay attention to them. To be emotional, ask yourself, “What are
my emotions telling me?” In the annual summer barbeque scenario
mentioned earlier, consider what emotional reaction you may have had.
What might you have felt when you misidentified (and, perhaps, misgen-
dered) Joanna’s spouse? What might your emotional reaction have been
had this been the first time you were speaking with someone who
identifies as genderqueer?
Similarly, while you may have never been in a situation like the one at
the company barbeque, you can also pay attention to your emotions as a
reader of that scenario. Did you have any emotional reaction as you were
reading that exchange of someone misgendering someone? Did it call to
mind and bring up an emotional reaction you may have had in a similar
situation where you misidentified someone?
Historically, reason and emotion have been perceived as two separate
aspects of who we are, often with reason being valued over emotion.
More recently, studies have proven that the two are in collaboration with
each other (Haidt, 2006). For example, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio’s
study (1994) of people with damage to the part of brain that generates
emotional responses revealed that they were unable to make decisions,
including simple decisions such as what to eat.
Emotions are important data that can help you recognize which option
is more important to you, which you care about more. Your emotions
help you make sense of your experiences, help you decide how to act,
and help you determine what to believe (Davi & Spelman, 2020). By
introspecting, we can pay attention to what those emotions are telling us.
People who identify as genderqueer report having witnessed both
strangers and colleagues having strong emotional reactions to their fluid
gender identity (Nadal, Whitman, Davis, Erazo, & Davidoff, 2016).
Wiley has had numerous experiences where individuals have expressed
outright anger toward them because of their gender nonconformity. They
had an experience traveling through London with a group of students in
10 WORKING MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH NON-BINARY COLLEAGUES 189
which a stranger yelled to the students about Wiley, “Get away from the
one that looks like a man but is a woman; it will lead you to hell” (Davi,
2006). Emotions can run high when we confront the unfamiliar.
Another example of emotional reactions relates to the use of the third-
person pronoun “they” that has been adopted by many (by no means
all) people who identify as genderqueer because it is a gender-neutral
pronoun. In 2019, Merriam Webster Dictionary included the single-
person version into its list of words. However, there has been backlash
among people who find it frustrating to make the switch, who have an
emotional attachment to words as they have come to know and use them,
or those who report feeling “weird” when they use “they” to refer to an
individual (Steinmetz, 2019).
In fact, we ourselves admit to having struggled with the term when it
first came to our awareness and recall having conversations about ways in
which it triggered emotional responses in us because of our training in
traditional grammar. Through our exploration of our feelings, we recog-
nized that for both of us, we were uncomfortable with the loss of control
stemming from new rules that flew in the face of that to which we were
accustomed.
When interacting with someone who introduces themselves to you and
who states they go by they/theirs/them, pause and ask yourself if you
are having an emotional reaction. Consider what those emotions might
be telling you.
To be emotional, ask yourself, “What are my emotions telling me?”
Be “impolite.”Our third reminder to guide your introspection is to
be “impolite.” To be impolite, ask yourself, “Am I neglecting identity
differences?” We bracket impolite with quotation marks to signal our
ironic intention. Many of us were taught that it is not polite to mention
someone’s race, religion, or other identities. Think of the instruction
that many of us (especially white people) received to be “colorblind.”
This approach advocates not seeing differences for fear of that awareness
leading to discrimination. With this reminder, we suggest being impolite.
We argue that it is important to notice social identity differences, to notice
our reactions to social identity differences, and to pay attention to how
our own social identities influence our perceptions, thoughts, and actions.
Additionally, it is important to recognize that we are a mix of
social identities and that the ways in which those identities intersect
make our lived experiences even more complex (Crenshaw, 1990). For
example, the intersectional challenges of a white genderqueer person
190 W. C. DAVI AND D. H. SPELMAN
may be wholly different from those of an African American, genderqueer
person. Imagine how the complexity increases with the overlay of one’s
socio-economic status, religious affiliation, or other identity differences.
Our social identities influence how we fit into society, how we see
others, and how we see ourselves (Davi & Spelman, 2020). Certain
social identities, for example, may provide us with access to opportunities
not available to people with other social identities. Our social identi-
ties give us more or less power. For example, men have historically had
greater access to influence, possibilities, and promotions within organi-
zations than women have had. Consider, then, what the implications for
genderqueer employees might be based on their gender identity vis-a-vis
professional advancement. Gender non-conforming employees have expe-
rienced discrimination in the workplace, such as being fired or denied
promotion because of their gender identity (Grant et al., 2011).
In addition to how we fit into society and how others see us, our iden-
tities influence how we see others. The communities within which we grow
up and live implicitly and explicitly assign positive and negative conno-
tations to a wide range of identities. We are taught to consider others’
identities whether we are consciously aware of them or not. Stereotypes
get assigned to certain social identities. For example, older employees
report being treated as if they are not capable or willing to learn or adapt
to new approaches in the organization (Chiesa, Zaniboni, Guglielmi, &
Vignoli, 2019). What, then, might be the ways in which genderqueer
employees are treated based on how others see them? Gender non-
conforming employees report having been made to present in the wrong
gender to keep their job, and many have been removed from direct
contact with clients (Grant et al., 2011).
Our identities also influence how we see ourselves. Our self-perceptions
are powerfully influenced by how we feel about our various identities and
how social identity dynamics play out in different situations. For example,
being genderqueer while participating in an LGBTQ parade versus being
the only genderqueer individual in a company-wide meeting undoubtedly
influences how one perceives oneself.
The powerful effects of social identities on how we are seen by others,
how we see others, and how we see ourselves suggest that ignoring social
identities is an unwise approach to dealing with our coworkers. Instead,
we should pay attention to their social identities and to our own as they
affect our interactions at work.
To be impolite, ask, “Am I neglecting identity differences?”
10 WORKING MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH NON-BINARY COLLEAGUES 191
Be uncertain. Finally, the fourth reminder is to be uncertain, which
helps us resist a human tendency toward certainty that usually leads us
to oversimplify. To be uncertain, ask, “AmItoosure?”Our brains want
predictability and, therefore, see patterns and clarity even if they don’t
exist. To protect us from the anxiety of uncertainty, our brains produce
a “feeling of knowing,” which kicks in involuntarily even when we don’t
have adequate evidence to support feeling certain (Burton, 2009,p.3).
At times when we have formulated a conclusion or belief, we seek sources
that reinforce rather than challenge that belief (Burton, 2009). Our brains
discern patterns based on bits of information that influence us to see what
we anticipate seeing or even want to see (Balcetis & Dunning, 2006).
For many of us, uncertainty leads to feeling anxious. Psychiatrist
Christopher Andre (2011) argues that all forms of anxiety reflect an intol-
erance for uncertainty. Consider the feelings of anxiety that are likely to
emerge in us if we can’t “figure out” someone’s gender. When we experi-
ence those feelings, we would be wise to resist the comforting tug toward
certainty. For example, if you are unsure of a colleague’s gender, sit with
the feeling of uneasiness. Pay attention to ways in which you may be
trying to fit that person into a particular gender identity in order to feel
more certain and less anxious with your not knowing.
To more fully understand our tug toward certainty, it’s helpful to
understand how our brains operate. “The Ladder of Inference” describes
how quickly we move from observations to assumptions and beliefs and
ultimately to actions, building our feelings of certainty with each step
(Argyris, 1982). We often rely on past experiences to reinforce our
certainty regarding our interpretations and assumptions.
For example, imagine you are giving a presentation, and you notice
that your colleague Susan yawns. One immediate response might be,
“Susan is bored by me.” If you have noticed Susan yawning in prior
presentations you have given, you might start moving up the ladder rather
quickly, thinking, “She’s often disengaged when I present. She doesn’t
value what I have to say.” Imagine, several months later, that you are
making a decision about a promotion within your division and Susan is
a candidate. Without even being conscious of it, you might find your-
self not very impressed by Susan’s application. Consciously, you may not
even be aware of how these earlier small observations of Susan are now
influencing your decision not to promote her.
Consider how quickly we run up the ladder of inference in the context
of gender identity. Since the gender binary is so powerful, most of us
192 W. C. DAVI AND D. H. SPELMAN
are not even aware that we are drawing conclusions about someone’s
gender. We don’t notice that we’ve climbed the rungs of the ladder.
Again, consider how often servers in restaurants or cashiers in grocery
stores welcome customers with the salutation “Hello, sir,” or “Hello,
ma’am.” Such quick thinking laden with hidden assumptions and biases
can have powerful impacts in the workplace. Often, out of our awareness,
we develop beliefs about who is right for a certain job, who you want to
have on a team project, and who you turn to for professional advice.
In addition, as you examine your resistance to uncertainty, consider
whether or not as you read this chapter you find yourself wanting more
concrete rules. For example, we find when we facilitate LGBTQ aware-
ness workshops, attendees want to know exactly how to behave. They
want to know what they should say or how they should act in order to
be an effective ally. That mindset reflects the impulse toward certainty
that we encourage you to identify and resist. The recommendation is to
notice when our brains are seeking certainty and operating with too much
certainty. We suggest that these are the moments when we are more apt
to get into trouble.
Instead, we suggest that you resist certainty by holding off on drawing
conclusions too quickly. We suggest that you recognize and then question
your initial thoughts and assumptions. We also encourage you to embrace
ambiguity and welcome complexity. When you find yourself asking, “But
what is the best response?” we encourage you to notice that question as
your brain’s tug toward certainty.
For example, Wiley is often asked by colleagues and new acquaintances
which pronoun they prefer. The question is a respectful one, but for
our purposes here, consider how it signals a need for certainty. Similarly,
Wiley’s response, “I’m comfortable with any pronoun – he, she, they…”
usually elicits the following response, “No, but really, which one do you
prefer?” Again, rather than seek a clear answer, another approach might be
to instead respond to Wiley by saying, “I’m not accustomed to a response
like that, but I hear you and am glad we talked.” Another option would
be to ask if there was more time to have a conversation so you could
learn more about such an openness to pronouns. Rather than seeking the
answer, sit with the complexity.
Here, you might ask yourself whether the use of different gendered
terms in reference to the CMO did unsettle you because it left you with a
question about the CMO’s answer. In other words, do you find yourself
distracted in the meeting because you just don’t know? By engaging with
10 WORKING MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH NON-BINARY COLLEAGUES 193
yourself in this moment, by introspecting, you will be better prepared to
engage with your colleagues and with the CMO. Starting with ourselves
positions us to create environments where people can work more effec-
tively across differences. Consider, for example, what your reaction may
have been had we decided to use different pronouns when we referred
to Wiley (she, he, and they). Might that have confused you or unsettled
you?
To resist certainty, ask yourself, “Am I too sure?”
Conclusion
We would be remiss if we encouraged you to pause and to engage in
paying attention to yourself but failed to say anything about what comes
next, about taking action. While pausing to introspect is crucial, we also
want to caution against falling into analysis paralysis. Understanding your-
self more deeply but failing to act is incomplete. You can never have all
the information you want, and the best course of action will seldom be
completely clear. Taking action often means taking risks and it requires
courage. Some failure is inevitable. But more productive relationships
with your genderqueer colleagues depend on taking the plunge. Better
to err on the side of action than to do nothing and maintain the status
quo.
Let’s return to Kevin in our opening example. When you realize Kevin
is in the cubicle next to you, what are you going to do after you have
paused and introspected? Will you report your self-introspection? Will you
roll your chair over and explain your thinking? Will you spend some time
thinking about your investment in the gender binary and ways in which it
may have manifested itself in your earlier exchanges with Kevin? Will you
acknowledge receiving the email and explain that you value your working
relationship and want to proceed humbly and with greater awareness of
the dynamics that might make life more challenging for Kevin?
You’ll notice that the previous paragraph is a series of questions rather
than rules to follow. The work of diversity and inclusion is messy. As an
ally, you may get it “wrong;” as someone who identifies as genderqueer,
you may get it “wrong.” By putting the word wrong in quotations, we
want to signal that there may be times when you paused, introspected,
and acted, but that things didn’t go as smoothly as you intended, and
that’s okay. In fact, it is to be expected. One of the benefits of doing this
kind of work within a community such as a workplace is that you often
194 W. C. DAVI AND D. H. SPELMAN
get opportunities to go back and try again. We want to encourage you
to see those moments when things didn’t go as you hoped as moments
when you can pause again, introspect again, and act again. With each
attempt, you will develop your intrapersonal capabilities as well as your
interpersonal capabilities, and you will, thereby, become more effective
working with your gender non-conforming colleagues as well as others.
Chapter Takeaways
•Gender non-conforming people are becoming a more visible part of
the workplace.
•Companies are recognizing the need to create more inclusive
workspaces for gender non-conforming employees.
•To work more successfully with gender non-conforming colleagues,
it is essential to understand ourselves and how we operate within
our places of employment. That is, to be effective interpersonally,
we must first be effective intrapersonally.
•Pausing is the first step that allows us to stop and look inward.
Pausing allows us to interrupt the flow of events to take a closer
look at ourselves, more specifically, to introspect.
•While introspecting, we recommend the following four reminders
and accompanying questions:
•Be humble by asking, “What is out of my awareness?”
•Be emotional by asking, “What are my emotions telling me?”
•Be “impolite” by asking, “Am I neglecting identity differ-
ences?”
•Be uncertain by asking, “Am I too sure?”
References
André, C. (2011). Looking at mindfulness. New York: Blue Rider Press.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organiza-
tional. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational
influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91(4), 612–625.
10 WORKING MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH NON-BINARY COLLEAGUES 195
Boncori, I., Sicca, L. M., & Bizjak, D. (2019). Transgender and gender
non-conforming people in the workplace: Direct and invisible discrimina-
tion. Inequality and organizational practice (pp. 141–160). Cham: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Burton, R. A. (2009). On being certain: Believing you are right even when you’re
not. New York: Macmillan.
Chiesa, R., Zaniboni, S., Guglielmi, D., & Vignoli, M. (2019). Coping with
negative stereotypes toward older workers: Organizational and work-related
outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology,10, 649. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439334/.
Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Decartes’ error: Error, reason, and the human brain.New
York: Grosset/Putnam.
Davi, A. (2006). Reflections of a transgender medievalist. Radical Teacher, 77,
40–41.
Davi, W. C., & Spelman, D. H. (2020). Leading with uncommon sense: Slowing
down, looking inward, taking action. Management, Change, Strategy and
Positive Leadership. Switzerland: Springer Nature.
Dietert, M., & Dentice, D. (2009). Gender identity issues and workplace
discrimination: The transgender experience. Journal of Workplace Rights,
14(1).
Flores, A. R., Herman, J. L., Gates, G. J., & Brown, T. N. T. (2017). How
many adults identify as transgender in the United States? Los Angeles, CA:
The Williams Institute 2016.
Grant, J. M., Lisa, A. M., Justin, T., Jack, H., Jody, L. H., & Mara, K.
(2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the national transgender discrim-
ination survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality
and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient
wisdom. New York: Basic Books.
Kozub, S. (2017, March 30). Take a deep breath—No really, it will calm your
brain. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/30/
15109762/deep-breath-study-breathing-affects-brain-neurons-emotional-
stat.
Nadal, K. L., Whitman, C. N., Davis, L. S., Erazo, T., & Davidoff, K. C.
(2016). Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer,
and genderqueer people: A review of the literature. The Journal of Sex
Research,53(4–5), 488–508.
Nadal, K. L., Rivera, D. P., Corpus, J. H., & Sue, D. W. (2010). Sexual orien-
tation and transgender microaggressions. Microaggressions and marginality:
Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 217–240). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
196 W. C. DAVI AND D. H. SPELMAN
Noguchi, Y. (2019, October 16). He, she, they: Workplaces adjust as gender iden-
tity norms change. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/10/16/770
298129/he-she-they-workplaces-adjust-as-gender-identity-norms-change.
Sawyer, K., & Thoroughgood, C. (2017). Gender non-conformity and the
modern workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.01.001.
Sheridan, V. (2009). The complete guide to transgender in the workplace.ABC-
CLIO.
Speer, S. A. (2005). The interactional organization of the gender attribution
process. Sociology, 39(1), 67–87.
Steinmetz, K. (2019, December 13). This is why singular ‘they’ is such a contro-
versial subject. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/5748649/word-of-
year-they-merriam-webster/.
Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., & Webster, J. R. (2020, March–April).
Creating a trans-inclusive workplace: How to make transgender employees
feel valued at work. Harvard Business Review,98 (2), 114–123.
Valcour, M. (2015, April 27). A 10-minute meditation to help you solve conflicts
at work. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/
04/a-10-minute-meditation-to-help-you-solve-conflicts-at-work.
Walker, M. (2017). Why we sleep: Unlocking the power of sleep and dreams .New
York: Scribner.
Wilson, T. (2004). Strangers to ourselves. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
CHAPTER 11
Gender Equality & Gender Equity: Strategies
for Bridging the Gender Gap in the Corporate
World
Radha R. Sharma and Sonam Chawla
Introduction
The sustainable development goals (SDGs), also known as the global
goals have “gender equality” as one of the goals which were adopted
by 193 member states in UN General assembly in September 2015 for
achieving a better future for all. The SDGs came into effect in 2016
and will continue to guide the United Nations Development Program’s
(UNDP) policy and funding to implement these goals.1Each goal is to be
measured for its implementation by every country with respect to clearly
defined targets. One of the targets to measure the SDG of gender equality
1http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html
accessed on 1st August 2020.
R. R. Sharma (B)
New Delhi Institute of Management, New Delhi, India
S. Chawla
Jindal Global Business School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_11
197
198 R. R. SHARMA AND S. CHAWLA
is “ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportuni-
ties for leadership at all levels of decision making in political, economic
and public life,”2which has policy and practice implications for organiza-
tions, institutions, and societies to facilitate the advancement of women
to senior leadership positions.
Gender Equality vs. Gender Equity
The terms equality and equity are often used interchangeably, however,
the two terms differ from each other significantly, and would depend on
the context and country in question. Equality is the process of allocating
resources, opportunities, and other facilities in such a manner that both
men and women have the same access. That is the same programs; initia-
tives or policies in the organizations would be applicable in the same
way to both men and women. Equality is a relevant concept where the
resources, capacities, experiences are the same. This approach believes that
both men and women are equal as professionals and need to be treated
the same way irrespective of the gender and are capable on contributing
and competing equally. Whereas, gender equity has been defined as “fair-
ness, treatment for women and men, according to their respective needs.
This may include equal treatment or treatment that is different but
which is considered equivalent in terms of rights, benefits, obligations
and opportunities,” ILO, Geneva, 2000.
Gender equity at the workplace seldom finds mention in the academic
literature focused on organizations, as most of the extant studies have
focused on gender equality at the workplace. Gender equity, would be
based on integration, rather than separation, of professional lives and the
private sphere of family and other personal involvements. Though the
goal needs to be to explore what would be required to realize such an
integration. On the societal level of a given context, activities would be
considered as important and valued as professional activities, according
to the cultural norms; also, on the part of the individual, it would mean
equal commitment to each sphere (Bailyn, 2003).
In the absence of the construct of gender equity in organizations
Sharma (2013) empirically evolved the construct of perceived gender
2http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/
goal-5-gender-equality/targets/ accessed on 15 May 2018
11 GENDER EQUALITY & GENDER EQUITY … 199
equity and studied its role in work engagement and employee well-
being (Sharma & Sharma, 2015). The terms equity in the organiza-
tional context has been defined as a composite construct of perceived
gender equity (PGE) encompassing organizational policies, practices,
and environment leading to gender equitable perceptions among the
employees (Sharma, 2013;Sharma&Sharma,2015). Gender equity,
which is different from gender equality and has been an underexplored
subject in relation to women’s career advancement (Sharma & Sharma,
2015). The construct of PGE comprises of three dimensions, “equity
perception through organizational policies,” “equity perception through
organizational practices” and “equity perception through organizational
environment” (Sharma & Sharma, 2015). Accordingly, perceived gender
equity’(PGE) and has been defined (Sharma, 2013) as “employees’
positive perception of equal opportunity in recruitment, training and
development, compensation, career progression, dignified treatment and
professional respect through the organizational policies, practices and
environment.”
Also, in a comprehensive report by McKinsey & Company and Lean
In in 2017 it was found that an increasing number of companies are
committing to gender equality. 77 Major firms like Apple, IBM, and CVS
have also faced major pressure from shareholders in the form of investor
proposals to adopt policies promoting gender equality within their firms.
Looking at the corporate pipeline, it is evident that inequality begins at
the very first promotion and continues to increase at each subsequent step
(Women in the Workplace 2017, Lean In and McKinsey and Co., 2017)
The Imperatives for Bridging the Gap
Gender equality has been considered as a pre-requisite to the progress
of organizations, economies, nations, and society-at-large (Hausmann,
2009; de Jonge, 2014). Also, from a human rights and dignity perspec-
tive, gender inequality prevents women from reaching their potential
fully (Greig, Hausmann, Tyson & Zahidi, 2006). According to Cata-
lyst (2019), men are two to three times more likely to be in a senior
management position than women. In Standards & Poor’s (S&P) 500
companies around the world, there are 36.9% first/mid-level women
200 R. R. SHARMA AND S. CHAWLA
managers; however, they occupy just 4.6% of CEO positions.3The under-
representation of women in senior management and corporate board
during recent decades has become an area of concern for organiza-
tions, economists, policymakers, and the society (Jonge, 2015; Machold,
Huse, Hansen & Brogi, 2013), and has started receiving scholarly atten-
tion in the recent years. The talent shortage has made it imperative
for companies to leverage the female talent to the maximum poten-
tial by attracting, retaining, and advancing women (Williams, Kern &
Waters, 2016). A lot of women leave their careers mid-way and at crit-
ical stages, which entails considerable loss to the organizations because
of the investment they have made in their development (Van der Walt,
Ingley, Shergill & Townsend, 2006). Apart from the humanitarian and
egalitarian considerations, there is also a strong business case for women
in the workforce, specifically at all levels in the organizations (Nielsen &
Huse, 2010; Wiley & Monllor-Tormos, 2018) as women bring different
viewpoints, creativity, and superior problem solving and decision-making,
different consumer insights that in turn, help firms to improve perfor-
mance (Konrad, Kramer & Erkut, 2008). Also, scholars and researchers
across the world have been focusing on the benefits of having gender
diverse workforce as well as boards and women in decision-making posi-
tions (Jonge, 2015), thus building the case for and focus on gender
equality and gender equity. The aging population and workforce, makes
it vital to leverage and advance female talent and therefore it is no longer
an option but an economic necessity today as women constitute half of
the population (Corkery, Taylor & Hayden, 2018). A World Bank report4
explains how the productivity of a nation rises by 25% when the barriers
to career advancement of women are completely removed.
Research evidence suggests that career advancement of women is more
complex than that of men because of the barriers they face (Chawla
&Sharma,2016). There are a number of factors that are identified as
barriers to career advancement of women in management (Barreto, Ryan,
& Schmitt, 2009; Burke & Major, 2014; Eagly & Carli, 2007;Naff,
2018; Valian, 1999), thus leading to fewer women in higher ranks and
3http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-sp-500-companies accessed on 12 June
2018.
4https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2012/Resources/7778105-129969
9968583/7786210-1315936222006/Complete-Report.pdf, accessed on 17 September
2017.
11 GENDER EQUALITY & GENDER EQUITY … 201
important decision-making positions in the corporate world. Glass Ceiling
(Davidson & Cooper, 1992) is identified as one of the main barriers
hindering the advancement of women. Glass ceiling effect implies, other
things (education, qualification, experience) being equal, a person is at a
disadvantaged position because of the gendered perceptions or notions
(Ragins, Townsend, Mattis, 1998). The term glass ceiling was coined
nearly 40 years ago but researchers have found that it remains relevant
even today (Barreto et al., 2009). The question arises how to quantify
the gap that will be explained in the following paragraphs.
Measuring Gender Diversity
Gender can be considered as an “institutionalized system of social prac-
tices within society that constitute people as two significantly different
categories, men and women, and organize relations of inequality on the
basis of this difference” (Ridgeway, 2007). This inequality is a result of
two interlinked elements—one is the “unequal distribution and access to
resources “and the other is the different meanings that are attributed to
femininity and masculinity in different cultures” (Fraser, 2003). Scholars
believe that in order to measure gender equality, these different inter-
pretations of the gender processes need to be operationalized in math-
ematical terms (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Further, the realization and
acknowledgement of inequities, and of the importance of measuring
them, has led to the development of a number of metrics focused on
quantitatively and qualitatively tracing the relationship between gender
inequality and national economic growth (Anand & Sen, 1995;Ferrant,
2009;Geske,2006).
Different gender-related composite indicators have been adopted to
measure gender equality, equity, and diversity. These include, for example,
the Gender Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment
Measure (GEM), both produced by the United Nations Development
Program; the Gender Parity Index (GPI) by the United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization; the Gender Inequality Index
(GII) by the European Union; the Women, Business and the Law Index
by the World Bank; the Gender Equality Index (GEI) by Bloomberg;
Gender Inequality rankings by McKinsey & Co; and, the central focus of
the current chapter- the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) by the World
Economic Forum (WEF). The 2020 Gender Diversity Index (GDI),
which has been tracking female presence on American boards since 2011,
202 R. R. SHARMA AND S. CHAWLA
notes significant improvements in gender parity in Fortune 1000 boards
since tracking began.
The Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) developed by the World
Economic Forum (Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2006) considers only
gaps that are detrimental to women. Whereas, another indicator devel-
oped by the European Institute for Gender Equality, the Gender Equality
Index (Humbert, Ivaškait ˙e-Tamoši¯un ˙e, Oetke, & Paats, 2015) states that
any kind of gender gap is detrimental, regardless of whether it is women
or men that are disadvantaged. The Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI)
is regarded as a significant indicator of gender disparities worldwide.
It’s useful tracking of the extent of access to resources and opportu-
nities, and differences between men and women have been discussed
across sectors and levels of decision-making. The index covers critical
aspects involving the four sub-indexes (dimensions): economic participa-
tion and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and
political empowerment. The Global Gender Gap Report (WEF, 2018),
also provides a brief overview of country comparisons and rankings.
The application of the index can be seen in policy formulation and in
consulting.
Gender diversity has been researched in the context of board gender
diversity and the two commonly used indexes used by researchers are the
Blau Index and the Shannon Index (Boulouta, 2013). Blau index is maxi-
mized when the proportion of men and women are maximized. The Blau
index is measured as:
1−
N
i=1
P2
i
where i is the percentage of board gender diversity and Nis the total
number of board members. The scale range from 0 to a maximum of 0.5.
It reaches 0.5 when the proportion of men and women in the board is
equal. Blau index was developed for measuring biodiversity in ecological-
economic settings, but it can be further applied to other measurement of
diversity (Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008; Gordini & Rancati, 2017).
Shanon Index is calculated as
Shannon Index (H) = -
s
i=1
piln pi
11 GENDER EQUALITY & GENDER EQUITY … 203
In the Shannon index, p is the proportion (n/N) of individuals of one
gender found (n) divided by the total number of individuals found (N),
ln is the natural log, is the sum of the calculations, and s is the number
of species/gender (Shannon, 1948).
The minimum value of the index is zero and diversity is maximized
when both genders are present in equal proportions, which gives rise
to a value of 0.69 (Shannon, 1948). The properties of the Shannon
index are qualitatively similar to those of the Blau index although it will
always yield a larger number than the Blau index and is more sensitive to
small differences in the gender composition of boards since it is a loga-
rithmic measure of diversity. The index is commonly known as Shannon’s
“entropy” index due to its formal resemblance to the entropy expression
from statistical thermodynamics (Ben-Naim, 2008).
Corporate Governance Codes
As discussed in the preceding sections, gender diversity on boards has
been gaining attention from scholars and corporates alike. A gender
diverse board has been proven to have positive impact on firm perfor-
mance (Wiley & Monllor-Tormos, 2018), governance (Orazalin, 2019),
creativity, shareholder value, and corporate social responsibility (Dawar
& Singh, 2016). Also, in order to attain gender equity and equality, it
is important to have fair representation of women in decision-making
leadership positions. Therefore, corporate governance codes have been
garnering attention, in recent years, as a method of regulating corporate
behavior considered to be beneficial to the listed companies and their
stakeholders. Initially the codes focused on gaining investor confidence,
however, their scope was expanded to include gender diversity and social
issues. Codes come in the category of soft regulation as “general princi-
ples rather than prescribed rules” and in most of the countries provision
of code is voluntary (Klettner, 2016).
Different countries have adopted different strategies involving specific
legislations, gender-based quota system, reporting gender composition of
the board and corporate governance code. A corporate governance code
clarifies the obligation of the Management Board (executive board) and
the Supervisory Board to ensure the continued existence of the enter-
prise and its sustainable creation of value in conformity with the principles
of the social market economy (interest of the enterprise). United States
was the first country to issue code of good governance in 1978 followed
204 R. R. SHARMA AND S. CHAWLA
by Hong Kong in 1989. It gathered momentum since 1992 when UK’s
Cadbury Report was brought out (Cuervo-Cazurra & Aguilera, 2004).
“Codes of good governance have become a central issue” (Aguilera &
Cuervo-Cazurra, 2009; Brown, Beekes, & Verhoeven, 2011). There is
an increasing interest in the diffusion of CG codes across countries”
(Brown et al. 2011). There has also been some research evidence that
indicates a positive developments and improvements in gender diversity
at the board levels by adoption of these corporate governance codes in
certain countries (Duh,2017).
Legislation: Company’s Act 2013: A Case Study of India
While corporate governance codes are not truly mandatory in their execu-
tion, legislations involve legal enforcement by the regulatory body. A few
countries have taken a step further w.r.t. having women on board and
mandated the same as a part of the law governing the listed compa-
nies. An interesting case here is that of India. The Companies Act, 2013
incorporated provisions aimed at strengthening Corporate Governance in
companies in India. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),
the regulatory authority in India, mandated that companies that have a
paid-up share capital of INR 10 million5or more, or a turnover of INR
3000 million or more have to appoint at least one-woman director on
the company’s board. This new ruling left the male dominated boards of
Indian corporates, struggling to find women directors.6Corporate orga-
nizations in India have admitted that though they would like to have
women directors from the industry, they have limited options as very few
women are found in the leadership positions. As on March 29, 2015 (that
is a day prior to complying with the norm earlier, later extended) 400
listed companies in India were yet to appoint a Woman Director.7
Corporates admitted that though they would like to have women
directors from the industry but the options were very limited since there
5https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=INR&
To=USD, accessed on January 17, 2019
6“Indian Companies Scramble to Find Women Directors”, New York Times, March 27,
2015.
7“Nearly 400 listed companies yet to appoint women directors,” Economic Times,
March 29, 2015.
11 GENDER EQUALITY & GENDER EQUITY … 205
were very few women leaders in the leadership positions. The compa-
nies then started exploring the options of having women directors from
other fields like government agencies, academic and research institutions,
non-profit organizations, as most of the limited eligible women in the
corporate world were already part of many boards. Though, most of the
companies would have liked to have women directors from the business
world as they bring in relevant experience to the decision-making process
required at the board level but the scarcity forced them to look outside
This corporate governance norm brought to fore the problem that the
companies were ignoring, that of, facilitating the advancement of women
to leadership positions. This in some sense “forced” the organizations to
put in conscious effort to not only improve gender ratio but also ensure
retention and advancement of women to senior positions in the orga-
nizations. This required a concerted effort from the companies to help
advance women in the organizations.
There are different motivators for organizations for diversity initia-
tives. However, the strongest motivator is the legal and regulatory push
(Langevoort, 2004).
In a last minute rush and the lack of availability of eligible women,
more than half the companies appointed family members (wives, daugh-
ters and sisters) to meet the requirement of the legislation mandated by
SEBI.8However, their appointment may have defeated the real purpose
of the legislation. Keeping in view the same, in May 2018, SEBI provi-
sioned that each of the top 1,000 listed companies must have at least
one-woman independent director by March 2020. As on December 31,
2019, 977 of that top 1,000 companies had a woman director, and 835
of them had a women independent director.9Independent Directors
have fewer potential conflicts of interest and can thereby operate with
greater integrity and can take impartial decisions (Fama 1980; Rosenstein
and Wyatt 1997) which may result in better financial performance and
governance.
This gender diversity drive has led to some early gains. Women inde-
pendent directors, usually seasoned professionals, have acted as role
8https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/wives-women-family-members-app
ointed-as-directors-sebi-norms/story/217547.html, accessed on 24th July 2020.
9https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/the-push-
to-appoint-women-directors-has-brought-diversity-to-an-all-boys-club.html, accessed on
25th July 2020.
206 R. R. SHARMA AND S. CHAWLA
models, ensured the interests of women in the workforce and pushed
for hiring of more women, among others. Many professional women had
joined company boards as independent directors after the 2013 Compa-
ny’s Act largely as MNCs and professionally run groups took the lead.
The share of women directors was a lowly 5% at the end of fiscal 2013.
Women’s share in boards of Nifty-500 firms has tripled to 15 percent over
the past six years.10 The Nifty-500 index is a proxy for listed firms across
the country, as it accounts for roughly 96% of market capitalization on
the National Stock Exchange (NSE) in India. It, therefore, gives a fair and
representative idea of the representation of women in leadership positions
in corporate India. The legislative approach adopted by India has yielded
positive results of enhancing gender diversity on the corporate boards.
The Way Forward
The World Development Report 2012 on Gender Equality and Devel-
opment (WDR, 2012) has provided an approach for enhancing gender
equality at the world of work which will add significant development
value from an early stage. Also, World Development Report 2013 on Jobs
(WDR, 2013) provides detailed frameworks for identifying and addressing
gender specific barriers and constraints which can be utilized by policy
makers to accelerate gender equality at the workplace.
The view on gender equity at home is also gaining importance espe-
cially in the context of work from home arrangements where both
partners work (for home as well as the job). Gender equality at work starts
with men becoming equal partners at home. Real equity and gender part-
nership require that men contribute their fair share not only to household
chores, childcare but also the emotional labor of planning and tracking
activities, and supporting their partner’s career (Johnson & Smith, 2018).
In the recent years, the issue of mental load or emotional labor of women
is coming to fore, highlighting the role of gender equity in the same.
Emotional labor includes having to think and plan about a number of
things on your mind. For example, women have to remember to stock the
grocery, prepare for their kids’ school activities, plan and decide the meals
in a day and keep a track of the communications from their kids’ school
(Forbes, 2019). Women, fall of the leadership track not only because
10 data sourced from NSE Infobase.
11 GENDER EQUALITY & GENDER EQUITY … 207
of what happens in office but also owing to what happens at home.
According to a report by Boston Consulting Group (2019),11 while men
are trying to contribute to tasks at home, an average man in a dual career
couple is far from sharing equal responsibility at home. This leaves him
with enough time to focus on his career- stay late at office, take on stretch
assignments, travel for business, and network with colleagues and mentors
post office hours. According to Melaku, Smith and Johnson (2020)when
men act as equal partners at home contributing to the household chores
and sharing other responsibilities, they contribute to gender equity in
three important ways. Firstly, it helps women accelerate in their careers
by giving them adequate time required to avail of the opportunities.
Secondly, by doing so the men also set the expectations for the gender
role of their future generations. Thirdly, when they would contribute at
home, they would ask for flexibility at work which would make it easier
for women to avail of such flexible arrangements at work. This would help
in “normalizing” the options of availing parental leave, flexible work or
paid leave for women as well.
In countries where the gender divide is greater (like India) the context
gender equity becomes important than equality. Gender equity denotes
an element of interpretation of social justice, usually based on tradition,
custom, religion, or culture (UN Women, 2018); which predominates in
the Indian context. Further, in India, economic liberalization has led to
an increase in the employment opportunities that has led to upsurge in
women employment. But the educated women still face the challenge of
growing through the organizational ladder (Khandelwal, 2002).
The chapter has provided a variety of strategies for bridging the
gender gap such as gender diversity indices, corporate governance codes,
Blau and Shannon index, and gender-based legislation which have been
adopted by various countries in recent years. It is time now to scientifi-
cally study the impact/effectiveness of these approaches within a country
or a cluster of countries in a geographical region based on cultural simi-
larity so that effective measures could be adopted to accelerate the pace
of bridging the gender gap across levels and achieving SDG 5 on Gender
Equality
11 https://www.bcg.com/en-es/publications/2019/lightening-mental-load-holds-
women-back accessed on 20th Dec 2020.
208 R. R. SHARMA AND S. CHAWLA
Chapter Takeaways
•The terms equality and equity are often used interchangeably,
however, the two terms differ significantly. Equality is the process
of allocating resources, opportunities and other facilities in such a
manner that both men and women have the same access. Gender
equity pertains to fairness in treatment for women and men,
according to their respective needs.
•From a human rights and dignity perspective, gender inequality
prevents women from reaching their potential fully.
•Apart from humanitarian and egalitarian considerations, there is a
strong business case for women in the workforce at all levels in
organizations as women bring different viewpoints, creativity, and
superior problem solving and decision-making, different consumer
insights that in turn, help firms to improve performance.
•Gender diversity on boards has been gaining attention from scholars
and corporates alike. A gender diverse board has been proven to have
positive impact on firm performance.
•Different countries have adopted different strategies involving
specific legislations, gender-based quota system, reporting gender
composition of the board and corporate governance code. A corpo-
rate governance code clarifies the obligation of the Management
Board (executive board) and the Supervisor y Board to ensure the
continued existence of the enterprise and its sustainable creation of
value in conformity with the principles of the social market economy.
•The World Development Report 2012 on Gender Equality and
Development (WDR, 2012) has provided an approach for enhancing
gender equality at the world of work which will add significant
development value from an early stage.
References
Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of good governance.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 376–387.
Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1995). Gender inequality in human development: Theories
and measurement. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from
MIT 1. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2), 137–153.
11 GENDER EQUALITY & GENDER EQUITY … 209
Barreto, M. E., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. T. (2009). The glass ceiling in
the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. xvii–334).
American Psychological Association.
Ben-Naim, A. (2008). Entropy demystified: The second law reduced to plain
common sense. World Scientific.
Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diver-
sity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (2),
185–197.
Brown, P., Beekes, W., & Verhoeven, P. (2011). Corporate governance,
accounting and finance: A review. Accounting & Finance, 51(1), 96–172.
Burke, R. J., & Major, D. A. (Eds.). (2014). Gender in organizations: Are men
allies or adversaries to women s career advancement? Edward Elgar Publishing.
Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom
and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83 (3), 435–451.
Chawla, S., & Sharma, R. R. (2016). How women traverse an upward journey
in Indian industry: Multiple case studies. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, 31(3), 181–206.
Corkery, J. F., Taylor, M. E., & Hayden, M. (2018). The business case for quotas.
Women on Corporate Boards: An International Perspective.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Aguilera, R. (2004). The worldwide diffusion of codes of
good governance. Corporate governance and firm organization, 14, 318–348.
Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling: The woman
manager. Paul Chapman Publishing.
Dawar, G., & Singh, S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and gender
diversity: A literature review. Journal of IMS Group,13(1), 61–71.
De Jonge, A. (2015). The glass ceiling in Chinese and Indian boardrooms: Women
directors in listed firms in China and India. Elsevier.
Eagly, A. H., Eagly, L. L. C. A. H., Carli, L. L., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through
the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business
Press.
Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of
Political Economy,88 (2), 288–307.
Ferrant, G. (2009). A new way to measure gender inequalities in developing
countries: The gender inequalities index (GII). JEL classification, 16, O11.
Forbes. (2019). Let’s share women’s mental load. Forbes https://www.forbes.
com/sites/rachelcarrell/2019/08/15/lets-share-womens-mental-load/#493
16556bd61.
Fraser, S. (2003). Cosmetic surgery, gender and culture. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Geske Dijkstra, A. (2006). Towards a fresh start in measuring gender equality: A
contribution to the debate. Journal of Human Development, 7 (2), 275–283.
210 R. R. SHARMA AND S. CHAWLA
Gordini, N., & Rancati, E. (2017). Gender diversity in the Italian boardroom
and firm financial performance. Management Research Review.
Greig, F., Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2006). The gender gap
index 2006: A new framework for measuring equality. The Global Gender
Gap Report.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity
constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.
Hausmann, R. (2009). The global gender gap report 2009. World Economic
Forum.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2006). The global gender gap report
2006. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Humbert, A. L., Ivaškait ˙e-Tamoši¯un˙e, V., Oetke, N., & Paats, M. (2015). Gender
equality index 2015—Measuring gender equality in the European Union 2005–
2012: Report. Vilnius, Lithuania: European Institute for Gender Equality.
Retrieved from http://www.eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/
mh0215616enn.pdf.
Johnson, W. B., & Smith, D. G. (2018). How men can become better allies to
women. Harvard Business Review, 11.
Khandelwal, P. (2002). Gender stereotypes at work: Implications for organisa-
tions. Indian journal of Training and Development, 32(2), 72–83.
Klettner, A. 2016. Corporate governance codes and gender diversity:
Management-based regulation in action. UNSW Law Journal, 39(2), 715–
740.
Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). The impact of three or more
women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics,37 (2), 145–164.
Langevoort, D. C. (2004). Resetting the corporate thermostat: Lessons from the
recent financial scandals about self-deception, deceiving others and the design
of internal controls. Geo. LJ ,93, 285.
Machold, S., Huse, M., Hansen, K., & Brogi, M. (Eds.). (2013). Getting
women on to corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Melaku, T. M., Beeman, A., Smith, D. G., & Johnson, W. B. (2020). Be a better
ally. Har vard Business Review, 98(6), 135–139.
LeanIn.org, & McKinsey&Co. (2017). Getting to gender equality starts with
realizing how far we have to go. Women in the Workplace 2017, Lean
In and McKinsey and Co., https://womenintheworkplace.com/, 2013
Company Act. https://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct2013.
pdf. Accessed on July 30, 2020.
Naff, Katherine C. (2018). To look like America: Dismantling barriers for women
and minorities in government. Routledge.
11 GENDER EQUALITY & GENDER EQUITY … 211
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). Women directors’ contribution to board
decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality percep-
tion. European Management Review, 7 (1), 16–29.
Orazalin, N. (2019). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility
(CSR) disclosure in an emerging economy: Evidence from commercial banks
of Kazakhstan. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business
in Society.
Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the execu-
tive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(1), 28–42.
Ridgeway, G. (2007). Generalized boosted models: A guide to the gbm
package. Update, 1(1).
Rosenstein, S., & Wyatt, J. G. (1997). Inside directors, board effectiveness, and
shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 44(2), 229–250.
Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems
Technological Journal, 27, 379–423.
Sharma Radha, R. (2013). Development and standardisation of perceived gender
equity scale, gender diversity in India: An unpublished report. Centre for
Positive Scholarship. Management Development Institute, India.
Sharma, R. R., & Sharma, N. P. (2015). Opening the gender diversity black
box: Causality of perceived gender equity and locus of control and medi-
ation of work engagement in employee well-being. Frontiers in Psychology,
6, 1371. Published online 2015 October 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2015.01371.
UN Women. (2018). Turning promises into action: Gender equality in the
2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.unw
omen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publicati
ons/2018/sdgreport-gender-equality-in-the-2030-agenda-for-sustainable-dev
elopment-2018-en.pdf?la=en&vs=4332
Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow?: The advancement of women. MIT press.
Van der Walt, N., Ingley, C., Shergill, G. S., & Townsend, A. (2006). Board
configuration: Are diverse boards better boards?. Corporate Governance: The
International Journal of Business in Society, 6(2), 129–147.
Wiley, C., & Monllor-Tormos, M. (2018). Board gender diversity in
the STEM&F sectors: the critical mass required to drive firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(3), 290–308.
Williams, P., Kern, M. L., & Waters, L. (2016). Exploring selective exposure
and confirmation bias as processes underlying employee work happiness: An
intervention study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 878.
World Bank. (2012a). Creating jobs good for development: Policy directions from
the 2013 world development report on jobs. Washington, DC: World Bank.
212 R. R. SHARMA AND S. CHAWLA
World Bank. (2012b). World Bank Report 2013: Jobs. Washington, DC: World
Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9575-2.
World Development Report 2012 (WDR). (2012). Gender equality and develop-
ment outline. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: http://www-wds.
worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/
11/03/000334955_20101103062028/Rendered/PDF/576270WDR0Se
cM1e0only1910BOX353773B.pdf..
World Development Report. (2013). Jobs. Accessible at: https://documents.wor
ldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/884131468
332686103/gender-at-work-a-companion-to-the-world-development-report-
on-jobs.
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2018, December). The future of jobs report
2018. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
CHAPTER 12
Restoring the Leadership Balance: WOMEN
UNITE
Joan Marques and Mercedes Coffman
Introduction
Women have regularly been described as natural leaders. In the surreal
time of the 2020 pandemic, a Harvard Business Review article published
data on the fact that countries with women in leadership had six times
fewer confirmed deaths from Covid-19 than countries with govern-
ments led by men (Chamorro-Premuzic & Wittenberg-Cox, 2020).
Chamorro-Premuzic and Wittenberg-Cox claim that there has been an
overwhelming number of reports highlighting that female-led countries
managed the crisis better. The praise was geared to these female leaders’
individual strengths, such as the data-driven trustworthiness of Angela
Merkel (Chancellor of Germany), the empathetic rationality of Jacinda
Ardern (Prime Minister of New Zealand), and the quiet resilience of
Tsai Ing-wen (President of Taiwan). The above trend is not a new one.
Hernandez Bark, Escartín, Schuh and Dick (2016) confirmed that female
leaders have been known to lead more effectively than male leaders.
J. Marques (B)·M. Coffman
Woodbury University, Burbank, CA, USA
e-mail: Joan.Marques@woodbury.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_12
213
214 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
Hernandez Bark et al. postulate that female leaders generally use more
effective leadership styles than men, are financially more valuable for
organizations, and bring more philanthropic and corporate social respon-
sibility efforts to organizations they are involved with. Given the current
awareness that soft skills, such as empathy, communication, and listening
are the most appropriate ones to lead others, it therefore remains amazing
that women only hold 21% of C-suite positions (Lipkin, 2019).
A factor to consider in the imbalanced leadership reality is the fact
that many companies will claim on their websites and on public forums
that they champion diversity, equity, and inclusion, but the composi-
tions of their leadership teams blatantly and categorically deny this claim.
The reason, according to King (2020) is denial. All of the 72 male and
female senior executives King interviewed stressed the meritocratic nature
of their workplace and the equal treatment all employees received. The
argument for women to be less successful in reaching the C-Suite was,
according to these senior executives, that women made different indi-
vidual choices or had deviating capabilities. The problem was, in their
opinion, not the hostility of their work environments.
Still, whether we choose to perceive women through their physical
constitution to procreate, their intuitive skill to yield when necessary, or
their innate grit to persevere long after others have given up: women have
been the backbone of every human society. “When women succeed, the
world succeeds,” said House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, at a 2017 rally
on international women’s day, March 8th, aimed at stepping up the rights
for women (Zavis et al., 2017).
A Disheartening Reality
The fact that women seem to have downplayed their leadership skills
for centuries might be explained by several factors. For starters, women
have been instructed for the longest time, starting with their upbringing,
that it’s more suitable to be discreet and even downplay their quali-
ties, compared to men who were encouraged from boyhood on to toot
their own horn (Seale, 2019). Women who display any authority are
labeled as bossy, whereas men exerting the same behavior are praised
for being passionate. In addition, there is a mentorship gap when it
comes to grooming women for leadership positions. This gap varies by
ethnicity and is greater for black women than for white ones (Seale,
2019). These are all factors that add to the challenge of women making
12 RESTORING THE LEADERSHIP BALANCE: WOMEN UNITE 215
the progress they could have been making if we observe the percentages
of college graduates in recent decades. Since 1981–1982, women have
outperformed men consistently in the percentages of college graduations
with women accounting for 57% of bachelor’s degree earnings in 2016–
2017 in the US (Matias, 2019). Yet, while women now represent half of
the US-educated labor force, their rewards remain low compared to their
male counterparts. The average male with a bachelor’s degree outearns an
equally credentialed woman by about $26,000 per year (Matias, 2019).
While the gender gap in pay has narrowed since 1980, it has remained
fairly consistent over the past 15 or more years. In 2017, women earned
82% of what men earned (Allen, 2018). While some sources argue that
this has to do with the differences in the professional areas women
primarily select—indicating that those are usually the lower paid fields—it
still turns out that men in similar professions get paid more than women
with equal credentials.
Considering the Origins
There is a subtle component that may contribute to the lingering status
quo of professional male dominance; one that is not often addressed
because it lies deeply in the emotional realm, and that is the fact that
women are the bearers of the sons they eagerly want to see pros-
pering, being acutely aware of these upcoming men’s inherent limitations
and deep-rooted vulnerabilities. Giancaterino (2010) describes the innate
vulnerability of men as a paralyzing sense of loneliness and a lingering
desire to obtain approval. According to Giancaterino, men have a greater
need for belonging and connection, which may be originating from
the irrefutable fact that, unlike women who come from women, men
don’t come from men. This undeniable truth may create a deeper need
for connection within males, yet, as they grow up and realize that
emotions are considered a sign of weakness, they unplug to an extent
that their sensitivity becomes deeply buried under an exterior of stoicism
and emotional indifference. McRae, Ochsner, Mauss, Gabrieli and Gross
(2008) explain the lesser extent to which men reveal their feelings as a
greater level of emotional regulation, and affirm that this doesn’t mean
that men have less emotional experiences, just that they withhold them
more from showing. The above reasoning upholds that women, the
bearers of men, are acutely aware of their sons’ concealed vulnerabilities,
and therefore support and protect them even more than they do other
216 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
women. A survey by the website Netmums, polling 2,672 mothers led
to the finding that more than one in five of the surveyed women (22%)
agreed that they let their sons get away with more, turning a blind eye to
behavior for which they would reprimand their daughters (Mothers harder
on daughters…,2010).
Considering the above issue from an opposite angle may partly address
the arising counterargument that women are also the bearers of the
daughters who are, till today, ruthlessly oppressed in multiple societies
and the professional world, leading up to the question: if women are truly
the societal backbone, why would they allow that to happen? The earlier
mentioned article (Mothers harder on daughters…, 2010) revealed that
mothers were twice as likely to be critical of their daughters than their
sons (21% compared to 11.5%). The article subsequently alerts its readers
that the parental disapproval girls receive growing up may be carried
into their professional performance, leading up to self-deprecation, and
subconscious preservation of the skewed power dynamics in workplaces.
A Recurring Story of Harsh Treatment
Another clarifying response may be that women are also acutely aware
of the inner strength of their own kind, and therefore know that their
“daughters,” on average, have greater stamina to cope with challenges
than the opposite sex. An interesting consideration, which is rather
fascinating and conspicuous, is the entrenched competitiveness among
women. In a 2016 article, Strauss addresses this issue, and cites a range
of sources that support the hypothesis that women are harsher to one
another in the workplace. Strauss (2016) mentioned surveys conducted
through the years, that yield women rating other women lower 57% of
the time, compared to their ratings of male colleagues, and reports that
revealed discouraging degrees of workplace bullying from women toward
one another than from the opposite sex. Strauss (2016) also mentioned a
2011 report from the American Management Association, which declared
that about 95% of women have reportedly been “tormented” by another
woman during their careers. University of Arizona management professor
Allison Gabriel also conducted a study based on three surveys regarding
women’s attitudes toward one another in professional environments and
found that “female-instigated incivility” (toward one another) is a very
real trend. In other words: women are oftentimes meaner toward one
another than men are toward them, and meaner than they are toward
12 RESTORING THE LEADERSHIP BALANCE: WOMEN UNITE 217
men (Ang, 2018). The tendency to penalize occurs particularly toward
women who try to defy stereotypes, and are thereby seen as violating
gender expectations. A resounding example is the case of Hillary Clinton,
who received much more support from other women when she was the
first lady (the stereotypical role) than when she was running for president
(defying the stereotype) (Ang, 2018).
The tendency of women to be harder toward other women may,
according to Strauss (2016), originate from a defense mechanism, trig-
gered by perceived competition. Whether or not that is the case, clinical
psychologist Seth Meyers (2013) reflects on decades of his work with
women across numerous demographic variables, and finds that there is
consistency in the harshness of women toward each other, to a greater
extent than toward men. He makes reference to the reflections of many
women who have explained their encounters with “mean girls” (female
bullies) in the workplace, all seeming to have a tendency to socially
exclude those they perceive as a potential threat. Indeed, there are many
women who will confirm that their harshest critics and least supportive
counterparts are not men but other women.
Presenting the term relational aggression, Crick and Grotpeter (1995)
found that, in a study among 491 third- through sixth-grade children
from public schools in the Midwest, this behavioral pattern was more
characteristic of girls than of boys. The results of their study indicated
that, as a group, girls were significantly more relationally aggressive than
boys and, when relatively extreme groups of aggressive and nonaggressive
children were identified, girls were more likely than boys to be repre-
sented in the relationally aggressive group (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
These findings were confirmed in a subsequent study (Crick, Bigbee, &
Howes, 1996). Meyers (2013), referring to Crick and Grotpeter’s studies,
infers that women’s negative attitudes at work could be considered a
manifestation of relational aggression. In support of the earlier presented
argument of mothers being harsher toward their daughters than to their
sons, Meyers also shares his experiences as a clinical psychologist in that
regard, suggesting that women with greater degrees of relational aggres-
sion may have been raised by mothers who were excessively critical toward
them, and potentially infused a negative mindset about women into them.
Meyers finally calls for a deliberate effort from women to teach their
daughters positive perspectives about other women, in order to groom
218 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
them for support rather than opposition of one another in professional
settings, as he sees this as the critical way to correct the status quo of
women earning less, and holding fewer leadership positions compared to
men.
Glass and Pink Ceilings
“The glass ceiling is a metaphor referring to an artificial barrier that
prevents women and minorities from being promoted to managerial- and
executive-level positions within an organization. The phrase “glass ceiling”
is used to describe the difficulties faced by women when trying to move to
higher roles in a male-dominated hierarchy. The barriers are most often
unwritten, meaning that women are more likely to be restricted from
advancing through accepted norms and implicit biases rather than defined
corporate policies”. (Kagan, 2019)
The glass ceiling was popularized in the 1980s and has been widely
perceived as the most common thread for women and minority members
to move upward in the corporate world. The term “pink ceiling” has
not been addressed formally and expansively as the glass ceiling, but it
also entails an informal and often undefined barrier for certain groups.
It is based on a homophobic mindset, and forms a resistance to gay and
lesbian workforce members in the ascent of their careers (Mitchell, 1999).
Even though there is abundant evidence of the increased quality that
a diverse workforce represents for output and the bottom line, glass and
pink ceilings are unfortunately still erected, invisible as they are. In addi-
tion, there is also a related term, the “glass cliff,” which represents the
instatement or promotion of women and minorities to positions in times
of crisis, when there is an elevated chance for failure (Brooke-Marciniak,
2018; Kagan, 2019).
When glass and pink ceilings are mentioned, there is often a subtle
implication that these barriers are erected and maintained by the “good
old boys club.” There is no doubt that much of these assumptions are
correct, given the fact that this club is still very much in control of the
C-suite. However, given the earlier mentioned tendencies of bullying,
incivility, and relational aggression within the female cohort, the question
that may arise is, who are the true designers of these barriers?
12 RESTORING THE LEADERSHIP BALANCE: WOMEN UNITE 219
Allen (2018) posits that corporate culture and societal norms are defi-
nitely impeding factors in pay and positional gaps between men and
women, but invites women to consider revisiting their approach in six
areas that may contribute to their continued victimization.
1. Women should dare to negotiate harder and ask for extra perks.
Allen (2018) states that, while women are superb negotiators, they
often question their own value, and subsequently lack the courage
to stand up for their own progress, not only in regards to the pay,
but also when it comes to incentives.
2. Women should start valuing their talents more, and no longer
avoid focusing on hard skills, which are also needed in profes-
sional settings. While soft skills are important in human interactions,
it’s equally advantageous to learn about strategy, finance, budgets,
analytics, and performance metrics—factors that come across as
impressive at the higher echelons of any organization (Allen, 2018).
3. Women should not shy away from conflict at work. Many women
in the workplace fear being seen as overly emotional or aggressive,
and subsequently avoid conflict at any cost. Unfortunately, postu-
lates Allen (2018), this profiles them as weaker than they are, and
allows others, oftentimes their male counterparts, to demand the
credits for bold advocacy.
4. Women should examine their work ethics and their need for more
flexibility, which makes their performance less impressive. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that men work an average of
14 hours more per month than women (The Economics Daily,
2015). Allen (2018) alerts that, while women need more flexible
hours for an oftentimes understandable variety of reasons, work-
places are not required to adhere to these needs, and may decide
to prefer other takers for demanding jobs. Allen therefore recom-
mends to every woman to deeply consider the demands of a job
before taking it on.
5. Women should include appropriate pace in their goals. This means
that priorities and sacrifices have to be made, in the understanding
that one cannot be everything to everyone at all times (Allen, 2018).
6. Women should be less risk-averse. Allen (2018) observes that perfor-
mance penalties are a major turn-off to many women, leading to risk
aversion, which often means, being stagnant in their performance.
220 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
With the six critical areas of attention and necessary attitudinal change
in mind, Allen (2018) reiterates that there are many factors keeping the
metaphorical ceilings intact, but there is also some work to be done by
women in order to shatter them for good. Living in an era of exceptional
paradigm transformations, it would befit all stakeholders in professional
settings to engage in deep reflection in order to address all issues on the
table.
Women Unite
The next section of this chapter presents ten reflective insights, which
are captured in the acronym “WOMEN UNITE.” The insights, formu-
lated by the authors on basis of their diverse experiences, insights, and
reflections as professional women, educators, supervisors, subordinates,
and minorities, are intended as a support system for women who are eager
to restore the leadership balance, and do so in a consciously and morally
responsible way.
Walk your talk:This is an era where mutual support is promoted,
and voices are raised for women to stand together. Welsh McNulty
(2018) is a major advocate for women to unite and walk the
mounting talk of mutual support, but she describes the experiences
that led to her current actions and insights in an industry that is still
solidly male-dominated at the top: the accounting field. She explains
that the greatest downfall for women in many work environments is
their lack of supportive action, and also clarifies why this seems to
be perpetuated: it is because women who support younger women
in workplaces usually get penalized by getting poorer ratings. As this
has become widely known, women in higher position have become
leery of supporting female protégés. Additionally, there is a space
bias about the percentages of women that should be represented in
leadership teams. Oftentimes, states Welsh McNulty (2018, compa-
nies consider their female top representation sufficient when there
are two women in a leadership team of ten. These women at the
top sometimes distance themselves from younger ones in order to
be more accepted by the senior leadership in-group, thus securing
their presence in the limited “space” they consider available for their
gender. With a description of percentages for female representatives
that steadily drop as we ascend levels in corporations, Welsh McNulty
12 RESTORING THE LEADERSHIP BALANCE: WOMEN UNITE 221
(2018) also emphasizes the even greater absence of women of color
in such circles. She therefore calls for more women support move-
ments in workplaces, greater levels of socializing, and continuing
to support younger female entrants until the tendency to be penal-
ized for doing so gets defused. Welsh McNulty also emphasizes the
importance of educating new female entrants that their tasks should
not be the stereotypical ones—such as always taking care of the
coffee—if they were not specifically hired to do so.
Open your heart: It’s not easy to climb the career ladder as a
woman—not even in these revolutionary times, but once you have
landed a leadership position, release grudges and spiteful manner-
isms. Turn inward instead, and generously grant others the oppor-
tunities that you had to fight for. Carboni, Cross, Page and Parker
(2019) provide four useful considerations to women in making
the best of their networks, while maintaining relations that provide
heartfelt support: (1) Boundary-spanning—whereby it’s not the size
of a network that makes the positive difference, but the diversity
of those one is connected with. Carboni et al. stress that remaining
in one small interest world, even if it consists of many people, keeps
perspectives and opportunities limited. Breadth in interest areas from
a small group of connections is much more rewarding. (2) Effi-
ciency—whereby a critical process of selecting through the many
demands on one’s time should be implemented in order to reduce
stress and a sense of being overexerted. Carboni et al. (2019)posit
that being strategic and thoughtful of one’s time and well-being is of
high importance, and this can only be done when one learns to say
“no” more often. (3) Stickiness—whereby women have to under-
stand the importance of maintaining valuable relationships—those
that are constructive to their well-being and progress—and release
connections that don’t contribute to their advancement. While it
may seem calculated, and Carboni et al. even drop the term “Machi-
avellian,” the deeper and more sensible message here is that it is
detrimental to hold on to obsolete relationships, since connections
should be organic, and regularly examined on whether they still add
value for all parties involved. (4) Trust, which is a critical aspect
in any form of human connection. Carboni et al. (2019)distin-
guish between competence-based trust and benevolent trust. While
competence-based trust is more attractive to men, benevolent trust
seems to be far more preferred among women. This is the type of
222 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
trust that garners mutual advancement in an environment of respect,
honesty, and reliability.
Motivate others: The progress made by one woman can be a great
motivator to others. However, attitude is a major determinant
here. Since almost every woman has encountered one or more
Queen Bee’s in professional settings, and has suffered from rela-
tional aggression in more ways than one, there may be legitimate
fear among younger women to approach more mature ones for guid-
ance. But here is where some deep soul searching within the more
seasoned women should emerge: we can either decide to exude a
sense of arrogance by remaining distant, or we can embrace those
who approach us for guidance, and help them believe in their ability
to succeed.
Studies have revealed that women score lower in power motiva-
tion than men (Hernandez Bark et al., 2016). Power motivation
describes interpersonal differences in the desire to influence others
(McClelland, 1985). Fortunately, literature about transformational
leadership has also established that women score higher in trans-
formational leadership than men, which may be attributed to the
feminine characteristics that lie at the foundation of this leadership
style (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & van Engen, 2003; Hernandez
Bark et al., 2016). It is the desire to transform in which we can find
influence, mentorship, and a drive to help others excel. Given these
innate qualities of women, there is no reason why there could not be
a concerted effort made in positively transforming upcoming women
in workplaces through motivational practices.
Express your appreciation: We often underestimate how intimidating
we may come across onto others, so making some extra effort
in showing our sympathetic and supportive side can only do us
(and others) a lot of good. Cancialosi (2016) warns that too much
complaining, especially at work, brings people down, hurts morale,
negatively affects productivity, looks unprofessional, and limits possi-
bilities. Cancialosi (2016) reminds us that we harvest what we focus
on, and when we focus on positive energy such as joy, integrity, or
trust, we pave the way for these vibes to surround us, and realize
that there is much to be appreciated every day anew. Cancialosi
recommends to consider a pattern of six daily steps to groom us for
greater appreciation: (1) choosing our attitude—regardless of our
circumstances, we have the power to do that; (2) paying attention
12 RESTORING THE LEADERSHIP BALANCE: WOMEN UNITE 223
to the way we speak and the things we say—our language use can
determine much of what we exude; (3) saying thank you—a simple
gesture that can send a lot of positive triggers in the universe; (4)
starting a gratitude journal to keep track of all our blessings; (5)
asking for feedback to learn how to listen attentively and find out
how we come across; and (6) shifting the narrative to positive rather
than negative topics.
Nurture constructive habits: One of the main problems with
successful people—men and women—is that they have become
workaholics, unable to relax, because they have unlearned that part.
Yet, what has been unlearned can be relearned. It’s not easy, but it’s
rewarding. Webber (2014) describes the shift made by a software
programmer, who was perceived as very successful, as he was making
a great salary. Unfortunately, he felt desolate and depressed by his
job. He ultimately decided to make the leap toward a more outdoors
form of making a living, and found that, while he was making far
less money, the quality of his life and his level of gratification was
immensely higher. Webber (2014) emphasizes that there is no age
barrier for a shift to constructive habits, and studies have revealed
that even people over the age of 70 made changes in their lives that
provided them a new burst of energy and fulfillment. Understanding
your strengths, weaknesses, passions, and story can help you define
what you really want in life, causing you to look at the world and
match yourself up to opportunities (Webber, 2014).
Understand differences: One critical flaw in many leaders—male and
female—is that they prefer team members with similar skills as they
have, while they should actually be looking for complementary skills
to form a harmonious and strong team. Inclusion of members of
underrepresented groups has multiple advantages. It’s not only the
right thing to do in regards to humaneness, fairness, equity, and
opportunity (the social justice case), but it also adds to a compet-
itive advantage, as diverse teams tap from a broader base of insights,
can solve problems in more creative ways, and therefore deliver
greater innovation and productivity (the innovation case) (Woo &
McIntosh, 2016). It’s also important to note that diversity should
not be limited to lower echelons of organizations, as this is exactly
why so many women refrain from rising through the ranks. Surface-
level diversity does not lead to creativity and innovation, but when
diversity is thoroughly embedded and valued in an organization
224 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
(deep-level diversity), there will be a clear positive effect on the
team’s creativity and innovation (Wang, Grand, Cheng, & Leung,
2019).
Navigate the path from here onward:If there’s one thing none of us
can afford, it’s becoming stagnant and stale, especially in the case of
women in supervisory positions. We should therefore never consider
ourselves too old or too established to be expelled from our current
position. Constant learning and evolving are keys to ongoing rein-
vention. Brenner (2018) offers five ways that can be constructive in
regrouping, reprioritizing, renewing, and possibly even reinventing
ourselves: (1) streamline your life, and a good way to start that is to
declutter our direct surroundings, reorganize our priorities, and re-
evaluate our commitments; (2) start something new—this can vary
from taking a class, learning a new language volunteer somewhere,
in short: doing something different that you consider fulfilling; (3)
engage in a new practice—a constructive new, daily habit that can
rejuvenate your degree of mindfulness—yoga, meditation, or exer-
cise are some great and inexpensive options; (4) spend time in
nature, as this confronts us with the cycle of life and can restore
our appreciation for simple joys; (5) take a trip to a place—near or
far—that you have not visited before. These outings oftentimes bring
a sense of renewed energy and insights.
Instill values into actions: Being true to one’s beliefs and values will
ensure optimal satisfaction when looking back at a finalized career.
Life presents numerous enticements to deviate us from our prin-
ciples. Yet, we have the space and capacity to consider the many
opportunities we receive to demonstrate our commitment. Selig
(2018) suggests several ways to determine our primary values, which
are the principles that give our lives meaning and allow us to perse-
vere through difficult times. Some of those are, (1) list a large
number of values, and then choose our top six to eight; (2) think
of a few people (about five) you consider dear or admirable, and
ask yourself why they are so important to you: this can reveal a set
of values you consider important; (3) observe yourself and ask what
you can learn from the choices you made, and (4) consider the highs
and lows in your life, as there is a lot of value discovery to be done
when evaluating your peaks and valleys.
Tread gently: It can be a tremendous challenge to remain gentle,
especially when we had to overcome numerous obstacles on our
12 RESTORING THE LEADERSHIP BALANCE: WOMEN UNITE 225
way to where we currently are, but this doesn’t give us a free
card to pound on the souls of others. Uzzi (2019) has found that
there is a difference between the networks of successful male and
female leaders: while men benefit most from the connection points
(centrality), women also need an inner circle of close female contacts
to guide them through the cultural and political hurdles in work-
places that men don’t have to worry about. This inner circle, a group
of intimate contacts, should be small, and preferably not connected
to similar clusters. Rather, the intimate contacts should derive from
diverging circles, so that friction and the rise of potential relational
aggression remains minimal. Being part of such an intimate circle
of confidantes is an honor for life, and gives us a chance to build a
legacy: it is a delicate and precious one, which we should cherish.
Excel where it matters: Getting ahead is great; making much money
is admired; achieving the highest rank is commendable, but helping
other living beings find happiness is the spice of life. It’s therefore
important to identify how to make a positive difference, and gear our
energy in that direction. That’s never a waste of time. Zalis (2019)
underscores the success rate that results from women networking
with and supporting one another. Referring to the term “power
of the pack”, she reveals the performance of some large women
support groups, such as The FQ Lounge, which doesn’t exclude
the presence of men, but emphasizes the purpose of supporting
females. Unlike an earlier presented statement from Welsh McNulty
(2018), Zalis (2019) claims that women who support other women
are more successful. She also advises to take the word “work” out
of networking, because many women shy away or stress about the
requirement to connect with others in order to progress on the
corporate ladder. However, when this is done in a meaningful way,
it may result in lifelong bonds.
The ten insights above, representing the acronym WOMEN UNITE,
are intended to encourage female (and male) leaders to reconnect with
their empathetic side, and build a legacy that will progressively make them
feel happier and fulfilled as they reach the stage of passing the baton.
226 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
Chapter Takeaways
•Women have regularly been described as natural leaders and have
been confirmed to lead more effectively than male leaders, yet, they
only hold 21% of C-suite positions.
The fact that women seem to have downplayed their leadership
skills for centuries could be explained by several factors, some of
which are:
– Women have been instructed for the longest time that it’s more
suitable to be discreet and even downplay their qualities.
– There is a mentorship gap when it comes to grooming women
for leadership positions.
– Women are the bearers of the sons they eagerly want to
see prospering, being acutely aware of these upcoming men’s
inherent limitations and deep-rooted vulnerabilities.
•A negative tendency among women is female-instigated incivility:
95% of women have reportedly been “tormented” by another
woman during their careers. Women are oftentimes meaner toward
one another than men are toward them, and meaner than they are
toward men.
•Another tendency that women often display against one another
is relational aggression: studies of school children showed that this
behavioral pattern was more characteristic of girls than of boys.
•The phrase “glass ceiling” is used to describe the difficulties faced
by women when trying to move to higher roles in a male-dominated
hierarchy. Even though there is evidence of the increased quality that
a diverse workforce represents for output and the bottom line, glass
and pink ceilings are unfortunately still erected, invisible as they are.
•“WOMEN UNITE” is an acronym intended to serve as a support
system for women who are eager to restore the leadership balance,
and doing so in a consciously and morally responsible way.
–Walk your talk: This is an era where mutual support is
promoted, and voices are raised for women to stand together.
The greatest downfall for women in many work environments
is their lack of supportive action.
–Open your heart: Turn inward and generously grant others the
opportunities that you had to fight for.
12 RESTORING THE LEADERSHIP BALANCE: WOMEN UNITE 227
–Motivate others: The progress made by one woman can be a
great motivator to others. We can either decide to exude a sense
of arrogance by remaining distant, or we can embrace those
who approach us for guidance, and help them believe in their
ability to succeed.
–Express your appreciation: Making some extra effort in showing
our sympathetic and supportive side can only do us (and others)
a lot of good.
–Nurture constructive habits: Understanding your strengths,
weaknesses, passions, and story can help you define what you
really want in life, causing you to look at the world and match
yourself up to opportunities.
–Understand differences: Look for complementary skills to form
a harmonious and strong team. Inclusion of members of under-
represented groups has multiple advantages. It’s not only the
right thing to do, but it also adds to a competitive advantage.
–Navigate the path from here onward: If there’s one thing none
of us can afford, it’s becoming stagnant and stale. Constant
learning and evolving are keys to ongoing reinvention.
–Instill values into actions: Being true to one’s beliefs and values
will ensure optimal satisfaction when looking back at a finalized
career.
–Tread gently: It can be a tremendous challenge to remain
gentle, especially when we had to overcome numerous obsta-
cles on our way to where we currently are, but this doesn’t give
us a free card to pound on the souls of others. Being part of an
intimate circle of confidantes is an honor for life.
–Excel where it matters: Identify how to make a positive differ-
ence, and gear our energy in that direction. That’s never a waste
of time.
References
Allen, T. (2018, August 25). Six hard truths for women regarding the glass
ceiling. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/terinaallen/
2018/08/25/six-6-hard-truths-for-women-regarding-that-glass-ceiling/#
11694079427f.
228 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
Ang, K. (2018, March 5). Why women are meaner to each other than men are
to women. MarketWatch. Retrieved from https://www.marketwatch.com/
story/why-women-are-meaner-to-each-other-than-men-are-to-women-2018-
03-05.
Brenner, A. (2018, April 8). 5 Ways to Regroup, Reprioritize, and Renew Your-
self Get yourself in rhythm with spring renewal. Psychology Today. Retrieved
from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-flux/201804/5-ways-
regroup-reprioritize-and-renew-yourself.
Brooke-Marciniak, B. (2018). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women are not a
leadership quick-fix. Pakistan & Gulf Economist, 37 (52), 83.
Cancialosi, C. (2016, February 16). The surprising power of appreciation at
work. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscancial
osi/2016/02/16/the-surprising-power-of-appreciation-at-work/#617ac7
464681.
Carboni, I., Cross, R., Page, A., & Parker, A. (2019, September). How
successful women manage their networks. Connected Commons. https://
connectedcommons.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/how-successful-
women-manage-their-networks-v2.pdf.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Wittenberg-Cox, A. (2020, June 26). Will
the pandemic reshape notions of female leadership? Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2020/06/will-the-pandemic-res
hape-notions-of-female-leadership.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and
social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722.
Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in chil-
dren’s normative beliefs about aggression: How do i hurt thee? Let me count
the ways. Child Development, 67 (3), 1003–1014.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. (2003). Transfor-
mational, transactional, and laissez-faire: A meta-analysis comparing men and
women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.
Giancaterino, W. (2010, January 11). Are men more vulnerable? Men are so
sensitive they literally unplug from their emotional lives. Psychology Today.
Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/men-and-mat
ters-the-heart/201001/are-men-more-vulnerable.
Hernandez Bark, A., Escartín, J., Schuh, S., & Dick, R. (2016). Who leads
more and why? a mediation model from gender to leadership role occupancy.
Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 473–483.
Kagan, J. (2019, October 24). Glass ceiling. Investopedia: Salaries and compen-
sation. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/glass-ceilin
g.asp.
12 RESTORING THE LEADERSHIP BALANCE: WOMEN UNITE 229
King, M. (2020, June 19). Leaders, Stop denying the gender inequity in your
organization. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/
2020/06/leaders-stop-denying-the-gender-inequity-in-your-organization.
Lipkin, N. (2019, November 19). Why women are natural born leaders.
Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolelipkin/2019/
11/19/why-women-are-natural-born-leaders/#515d37d66641.
Matias, D. (2019, June 20). New report says women will soon be
majority of college-educated U.S. workers. National Public Radio, Inc.
Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734408574/new-rep
ort-says-college-educated-women-will-soon-make-up-majority-of-u-s-labor-f.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
McRae, K., Ochsner, K. N., Mauss, I. B., Gabrieli, J., & Gross, J. J. (2008).
Gender differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive
reappraisal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(2), 143–162.
Meyers, S. (2013, September 24). Women who hate other women:
The psychological root of snarky: Women are often harder on each
other than men are on each other. Psychology Today. Retrieved
from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-is-2020/201309/
women-who-hate-other-women-the-psychological-root-snarky.
Mitchell, J. (1999, 06). The pink ceiling: The macho bay street culture can be
hostile to anyone who doesn’t play by its rules. for gays, the price is often a
high one. Report on Business Magazine, 15, 78–84.
Mothers ‘harder on daughters than sons’, poll suggests (2010, October 6). BBC
News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/education-11476561.
Seale, C. (2019, June 14). Why a post about women downplaying their
awesomeness went viral. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/
sites/colinseale/2019/06/14/why-a-post-about-women-downplaying-their-
awesomeness-went-viral/#84202221a4d3.
Selig, M. (2018, November 4). 6 ways to discover and choose your core values.
Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/
blog/changepower/201811/6-ways-discover-and-choose-your-core-values.
Strauss, K. (2016, July 18). Women in the workplace: Are women tougher on
other women? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kar
stenstrauss/2016/07/18/women-in-the-workplace-are-women-tougher-on-
other-women/#e857347ea9b1.
The Economics Daily. (July 2, 2015). Time spent working by full- and part-
time status, gender, and location in 2014. US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-
by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm.
Uzzi, B. (2019, February 25). Research: Men and women need different
kinds of networks to succeed. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
230 J. MARQUES AND M. COFFMAN
https://hbr.org/2019/02/research-men-and-women-need-different-kinds-
of-networks-to-succeed.
Wang, J., Cheng, Grand H.-L., Chen, T., & Leung, K. (2019). Team
creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 40 (6), 693–708.
Webber, R. (2014, May 6). Reinvent yourself. Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/articles/201405/reinvent-yourself.
Welsh McNulty, A. (2018, September 3). Power of women supporting each other
at work. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/
09/dont-underestimate-the-power-of-women-supporting-each-other-at-work.
Woo, M., & McIntosh, K. W. (2016). Why diverse teams matter. EDUCAUSE
Review, 51(3), 54.
Zalis, S. (2019, March 6). Power of the pack: Women who support women are
more successful. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/she
lleyzalis/2019/03/06/power-of-the-pack-women-who-support-women-are-
more-successful/#1630bbf81771.
Zavis, A., King, L., Jarvie, J. & Demick, B. (2017, March 8). ‘Women are the
backbone of this country’: Thousands across the nation skip work, wear red
and rally. Los Angeles Times —World and Nation. Retrieved from https://
www.latimes.com/world/la-na-day-without-a-woman-20170308-stor y.html.
CHAPTER 13
What Hinders Me from Moving Ahead?
Gender Identity’s Impact on Women’s
Entrepreneurial Intention
Eleftheria Egel
What we believe to be possible defines what we are capable of creating.
— Nassim Haramein, Unified Physicist.
Introduction
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2018–2019 Women’s
Report, found that the global TEA1rate for women is 10.2%—
approximately 3/4 of that seen for men. The GEM Report also
divides entrepreneurial activity into two categories. First, necessity-driven
entrepreneurship, which can be caused by a lack of formal employment
1Total Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) represents the % of the adult working-age
population (18–64) who are either nascent or new entrepreneurs
E. Egel (B)
Navigating Transformation, Female Entrepreneurship Consultancy, Muellheim,
Germany
e-mail: NavigatingTransformation@amfortas.eu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_13
231
232 E. EGEL
opportunities in a country or personal necessity (e.g., single mother
household), and second, innovation-driven entrepreneurialism, which
exists in countries with well-developed formal job markets. Low-income
countries report the highest rates of women’s necessity-driven TEA at
15.1%. Also more women (27%) around the globe started their businesses
“out of necessity,” compared to men (21.8%). Conversely, fewer women
(68.4%) started their companies “to pursue an opportunity” than men
(74%), resulting in what GEM calls a “7% gender gap.”
Entrepreneurial intention (EI) is defined as the expressed behavioral
intention to become an entrepreneur (Bird, 1988). It is considered as
the most critical factor for predicting a business start-up. Therefore,
exploring the building blocks necessary to develop entrepreneurial inten-
tion is pivotal in understanding or predicting how a person becomes
an entrepreneur (Boudreaux, Nikolaev, & Klein, 2019; Tsai, Chang, &
Peng, 2016). One of the building blocks of EI is entrepreneurial self-
efficacy (ESE). According to a growing body of academic research ESE
is a predictor of an individual’s propensity to engage in entrepreneurial
action (e.g., ; Baron, 2006;Boyd&Vozikis,1994; Rauch & Frese, 2007;
Sequeira et al., 2007; Welpe, Spörrle, Grichnik, Michl, & Audretsch,
2012; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005).
The concept of entrepreneurial self-efficacy is derived from social
cognitive theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy has been defined
as a “…belief in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cogni-
tive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational
demands…” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408). Self-efficacy is based
upon past experience and anticipation of future obstacles and affects
one’s beliefs about whether or not specific goals are attainable (Gist &
Mitchell, 1992). It accordingly influences an individual’s choice of activ-
ities, goal levels, persistence, and performance in a range of contexts. If
self-efficacy is low, an individual will not act, even if there is perceived
social approval for that behavior (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). In the context
of entrepreneurship, self-efficacy refers to the belief entrepreneurs have in
their own skills and capabilities to start and run new business ventures
(McGee et al., 2009). Boyd and Vozikis (1994) were the first who
theorized that self-efficacy influences the development of entrepreneurial
intentions and hence the probability of venture creation. More recently,
Zhao et al. (2005) proposed a predictive model of entrepreneurial inten-
tions in which self-efficacy plays a critical mediating role. Entrepreneurial
self-efficacy (ESE) develops over time and is influenced by a number of
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 233
external and internal factors such as upbringing, economic circumstances,
personality traits, and values (Altinay, Madanoglu, Daniele, & Lashley,
2012; Cox, Mueller, & Moss, 2002). It is also affected by national or
regional context to the extent that opportunities for gaining confidence
through experience and role modelling are prevalent, thereby enhancing
ESE, or limited, thereby reducing ESE (Mueller & Goic, 2003).
Personality traits form an important part of individuals’ personal iden-
tities (Zee, Atsma, & Brodbeck, 2004). In this paper I focus on how
personality traits and, consequently, personal identities affect women’s
ESE.
In the following section I try to elucidate how a female entrepreneur’s
identity is shaped by their broader self-concept. First, I explain the notion
of women’s multiple identities from a psychodynamic perspective and
second, I explore how these multiple identities shape their entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and intention to start a business.
Female Entrepreneurs’Identity
The self is not a unitary whole. Instead, it is a shifting dynamic constel-
lation of core and secondary affective-cognitive self-schemas moving in a
continuum between “self-assigned” to “attributed by others”; a form of
compromise between preferred and imputed designations, that act as a
self-regulating mechanism for behaviors (Lord & Brown, 2001). These
self-schemas are called identities (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, &
Tice, 1998; Snow & Anderson, 1987). Identity refers to subjective knowl-
edge, meanings, and experience, to our ongoing efforts to address the
twin questions, “Who am I?” and—by implication—“how should I act?”
“Who I am” encompasses the notion of our possible selves, i.e., our ideas
about who we might become, would like to become, or fear becoming
(Gergen & Gergen, 1988;Markus&Nurius,1986). The locus of indi-
vidual identity is neither fully internal (e.g., I determine that I am a
leader) nor completely external (e.g., it is not imposed through socioe-
conomic factors). It depends upon both one’s personal identity (physical
and psychological attributes) (e.g., height, disabilities, intelligence, extro-
vert nature) and the social identity that is shaped from one’s relationships
with others—group identities (e.g., gender, nationality, religion) and role
identities (e.g., mother, spouse, entrepreneur). Although individuals have
numerous social roles (e.g., student, spouse, and worker) they develop
234 E. EGEL
role identities only for those roles that they internalize into their self-
concept (Donahue, Robins, Roberts, & John, 1993). These role identities
represent the characteristics a person ascribes to him or herself in a partic-
ular role. Some individuals develop role identities that vary considerably
across roles, whereas others develop role identities that are essentially the
same across roles. For example, one woman might see herself as fun,
living, and easygoing with her friends but as serious and reserved at work.
The meanings that individuals attach to themselves as a function of
their multiple social group and role memberships are called multiple iden-
tities. It is obvious that the dynamic and unique interaction among an
individual’s personal identity and their multiple identities differentiates
their self-concept and functions as a resource for personal and work rela-
tionships and continued identity development (Rothbard, 2001). The
depth and the quality of the interaction among multiple identities is
better understood using a psychodynamic lens which takes into account
the impact of the unconscious (drives and forces within a person) to
the conscious. Whereas Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis was the original
psychodynamic theory, the psychodynamic approach evolved as a whole
and today includes all theories that were based on Freud’s original ideas;
such as, the theories of Carl Jung, Melanie Klein, Alfred Adler, Anna
Freud, and Erik Erikson. All these theories—despite their differences—
share some common fundamental principles, the most relevant of which
for this article are the following: First, the unconscious is largely a vast
interior and more primitive domain than the conscious. Second, the
conscious is a field of awareness in the everyday waking rational state.
Third, identities can be contradictory and in conflict. Fourth, there are
psychological defenses that can hinder identity integration and devel-
opment. Fifth, identity development is not a linear process but rather
one that involves gains and losses (DeRue, Ashford, & Cotton, 2009;
Ford & Mouzas, 2010; Nicholson & Carroll, 2013; Petriglieri, Ashford,
Wrzesniewski, 2019).
How Do These Multiple Identities Impact
Women’s Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy?
I will try to answer this question by exploring how the five funda-
mental principles of multiple identities I referred to above play out for
female entrepreneurs. The first principle influences—without women real-
izing it—the way they perceive their choices in their lived reality (second
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 235
principle), creating, thus, the unseen framework of being (ontology)
within which the remaining three principles are manifested. As the female
entrepreneur’s identity needs to be integrated within their self-concept,
if their identity as entrepreneurs is not compatible with their existent
multiple identities, this may lead to conflict between their new identity
(entrepreneur’s) and one or more of their opposing existent multiple
identities (e.g., mother’s, spouse’s, employee’s) (third principle). If the
conflict is intense, the female entrepreneur may then turn to a defense
mechanism to cope with the conflict, such as justification of the conflict
(fourth principle). If no integration is achieved that will strengthen
their entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the female entrepreneur prefers to
discard their entrepreneurial identity (fifth principle) for fear they will
not make it. Research has shown that ESE is influenced by how far the
entrepreneur believes their own personality traits match the task demands
of entrepreneurship as well as on the entrepreneur’s perception about
the outcome anticipated. ESE, in its turn, impacts EI. Founding and
managing a new business venture requires an entrepreneur to fulfil a
number of unique task demands or work roles such as innovator, risk
taker and bearer, executive manager, relationship builder, risk reducer,
and goal achiever (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998). If an individual’s self-
efficacy is low their self-perceived match between their own personality
traits and the task demands of entrepreneurship won’t be present (Zhao,
Seibert, & Lumpkin, 2010). Concerning an individual’s perception about
the anticipated success or failure of their venture, few people form inten-
tions about engaging in entrepreneurial activities if they believe there is a
high probability of failure.
First I will explicate how the unconscious—(“the androcentric cosmol-
ogy”) (Bourdieu, 2001, p.6)—influences the conscious (women’s gender
identity) and consequently women’s self-concept. Humans perceive
reality as a dualistic system of polarities (univocal determinacy). We
use a system of binary oppositions to categorize reality; such as—
up/down, above/below, in front of/behind, light/dark, good/bad,
outside(public)/inside (private). These categorizations divide our percep-
tion of the world into univocal “either/or; i.e., one thing can have
only one meaning. Male/female is another opposition which implies that
male cannot be female and vice versa. In his “practice theory” (2003),
Bourdieu goes one step further to explicate that dualism is prejudiced
as it has imposed the androcentric cosmology—also named patriarchy
or masculine order—as neutral. As such, it has legitimized (i.e., socially
236 E. EGEL
constructed) its arbitrary division of the sexes—which appears to be “in
the order of things” and therefore inevitable: sexual division of labor (e.g.,
doctor/nurse or executive/secretary), the place of activities assigned to
each sex (e.g., the market reserved for men, and the house, reserved for
women), the life cycle (male moments of rupture and the long female
periods of gestation). It has reigned for so long that no one denies its
legitimacy. According to Bourdieu, the process of legitimation of mascu-
line dominion has been imposed with “symbolic violence”—“a gentle
violence, imperceptible and invisible even to its victims exerted for the
most part through the purely symbolic channels of communication and
cognition, recognition or even feeling…” (2001, p. 2). Symbolic violence
is the moving power of the socially constructed immense symbolic
machine that creates and feeds a vicious circle: The gendered and prej-
udiced deep-rooted social and cultural scripts (i.e., ideas, relationships,
power differences) combine with material factors to create social positions
and to set the context for social action. They, in their turn, lead to the
social reproduction of existing social norms, ideals, and expectations and
related systems of belief and individual agency (Foschi, 2000; Sidanius,
Pratto, Van Laar, & Levin, 2004). In this (re-)distribution resources and
rights are allocated accordingly (Elam, 2014; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004;
Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999). For instance, research on financing of
new ventures has shown that when resources are scarce, they are seen
as better directed toward more legitimate and established firms, which
tend to be businesses led by men. Not to oversee is the fact that men’s
businesses are often located in higher margin industries whereas women’s
businesses are primarily concentrated in lower margin industries; mainly
retail and services (Brush, Carter, Gatewood, Greene, & Hart, 2004;
Edelman, Manolova, & Welter, 2019).
As symbolic violence does not operate at the level of conscious inten-
tion, even the best-intentioned men perform discriminatory acts by
constructing the diminished situation of women and eventually excluding
them. Bourdieu gives some characteristic examples: when women take
part in a public debate, they must fight unceasingly for a chance to speak
and to keep attention. Concerning the evaluation of male and female
activities: whereas being a cook or a seamstress is considered easy and
futile when performed by women, when it is performed by a man outside
the private sphere it is considered noble and difficult. The man is now
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 237
called chef and couturier. As a result, every masculine endeavor is consid-
ered more important than a feminine one and women, subconsciously
accept that their modus operandi is inferior to that of men (Egel, 2020).
The prejudiced domination of the masculine has resulted in
entrepreneurship to be generally characterized as a male-type activity in
terms of both social structure and influence. Entrepreneurship is heavily
influenced by family status and social networks (Ahl, 2004; Baker, Aldrich,
& Liou, 1997;Brush,1992; Jennings & Brush, 2013). Aldrich (1989),
for instance, pointed that women hold a different view of reality that
emanates from social structures, such as the workplace, marriage, family,
and social life. Another outcome is that female entrepreneurs view them-
selves as limited in the way they understand the world around them and
approach other people, but also in their future aspirations (Eddleston &
Powell, 2008; Hoang & Gimeno, 2010). It is no wonder, then, that
women are, on average, about half as likely as men to start businesses and
much less likely to start high growth, high-profit firms (Acs, Arenius, Hay,
& Minniti, 2005; Reynolds, Bygrave, & Aution, 2004). On the other
hand, as I explained in the introductory section, women’s rates are higher
than those of men in necessity-driven entrepreneurship where women are
called to carry the family load (GEM, 2018/2019).
Let us now explore how the gendered approach to entrepreneurship
impacts women’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention to start a busi-
ness by using the remaining three principles of multiple identities seen
from a psychodynamic perspective I referred to above.
A person’s entrepreneurship identity is situated within their broader
self-concept. In becoming an entrepreneur, people face the challenge of
integrating a new entrepreneur identity with their other valued (central)
identities. To accommodate their entrepreneur role demands, female
entrepreneurs need to modify role definitions (e.g., spouse, employee)
and achieve a new synthesis among their multiple important identi-
ties (adaptation) (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016; Nicholson, 1984). When
the other identities (e.g., that of a mother) are equally important but
the cultures associated with them are not complementary (e.g., being a
parent and a spouse) but opposing (e.g., being a parent versus being an
entrepreneur), it will more probably lead to interference between these
identities, conflict and eventually—if integration is not achieved—to a
number of defensive behaviors as a means of coping with conflict (Argyris,
2004; Settles, 2004; Thoits, 1991). For example, women entrepreneurs
may distance themselves from their identity as a mother (avoidance
238 E. EGEL
of identity conflict). Or, women entrepreneurs may feel shame when
they perceive that their entrepreneurial identity is in conflict with a
socially valued identity (e.g., spouse). Potential outcomes of dissonance
are reduced physical and psychological well-being, self-confidence, work
performance, creativity, and work engagement (Cheng et al., 2008;
Graves, Ohlott, & Ruderman, 2007; Rothbard, 2001; Settles, Sellers, &
Damas, 2002).
Here below, I am using the psychodynamic lens to explore how the
multiple identity conflict plays out for female would-be entrepreneurs.
For women aspiring to become entrepreneurs, their complementary
traditional identities (e.g., being a mother, a spouse, an employee, a
necessity-driven entrepreneur) are opposed to being an innovation-driven
entrepreneur. The gendered approach to entrepreneurship as I explained
above (first and second principles) creates two obstacles: First, women
believe that they do not have the required qualities to succeed; and
second, they are afraid that their choice to become entrepreneurs may
endanger their social belonging. Both obstacles reduce women’s self-
efficacy and accordingly their intention to start a business. Entrepreneur-
ship, similarly to traditional leadership- is associated with “male” qualities
such as aggressiveness, achievement orientation, dominance, indepen-
dence, challenge, and high risk-taking (Ahl, 2006;Buttner&Moore,
1997; Egel, 2020; Gupta, Turban, Wasti & Sikdar, 2009; Stewart &
Roth, 2001). For instance, women tend to avoid risk or, rather, become
less involved in situations with vague success (Orobia & Rooks, 2011;
Powell & Ansic, 1997; Sexton & Bowman-Upton, 1990). Van Gelderen,
Atsma and Brodbeck (2008) demonstrated that men value challenge and
autonomy more than women, while women value financial security and
workload. Eagley and Karau (2002) with their role congruity theory
showed that men and women choose jobs with characteristics that comply
with their individual characteristics. Since men exhibit entrepreneurial
characteristics to a higher degree, women anticipate a misfit between
their traits and behaviors and those required to become a successful
entrepreneur. Hence, self-identification decreases, and cognitive disso-
nances occur (Haus, Steinmetz, Kabst, & Isidor, 2013;Marlow,2002;
Marlow & Patton, 2005; Shibley Hyde & Kling, 2001). Coming to the
second obstacle—that of social belonging—social identity theory states
that people define themselves as being members of an in-group that
has significantly different attributes from an out-group (Tajfel & Turner,
1986). Members of the in-group evaluate activities by whether they are in
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 239
line with a social identity prototype—a “fantasy”—and are more likely to
conduct activities that fit or approach as much as possible their prototype.
Their self-esteem derives from that identity. Its height depends on the
extent to which they feel they can live up to that idealized, fantastic image
(Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This idealized image
defines what success, achievement, and status mean. Accordingly, it is used
by the individual and the in-group to determine who belongs in the group
and also the perceived negative attributes of the out-group (Brown &
Starkey, 2000). Having a clear idea of expectations and boundaries helps
the individual to feel safe and develop a sense of belonging. A perfected
ideal to look up to also provides important defenses when individuals
confront difficult or impossible tasks (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Stryker &
Burke, 2000). For women, their in-group comprises women who hold
traditional roles. Being part of the group and being successful is being
in line with the traditional feminine identity prototype—as I described it
above (Bourdieu, 2001/2003). The out-group—the vast world of male
entrepreneurship—considers female entrepreneurship as less desirable and
does not provide adequate normative societal support (Baughn, Chua,
&Neupert,2006) leading to women having less self-efficacy and being
afraid to start a business. Bandura (1993) found that social persuasion—
ranging from positive encouragement of friends and family to professional
support from bankers and accountants—can affect self-efficacy. Individ-
uals who are persuaded verbally that they possess the skills and talent to
achieve certain goals are more likely to put forth greater effort than those
who may have self-doubts.
That explains partially why women reported having lower confidence
levels than men in their capabilities to start a business in the GEM 2018 –
2019 Women’s Report. Overall, men are about 10% more likely to be
undeterred by fear of failure than women. This can also be the reason why
women more often pursue opportunities in more competitive, low margin
industries or markets. This results in very different business goals, business
models, and outcomes. Women also encounter interpersonal dynamics at
the business level that reinforce traditional gender hierarchies, male domi-
nance, and undermine personal agency, self-confidence, and professional
legitimacy (Hechavarria at al., 2017; Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999).
Research conducted at women-owned businesses aligns with these find-
ings. Women-owned businesses have been found to have lower levels
of growth and remain smaller than men-owned businesses (Cliff, 1998;
Coleman, 2016; Davis & Shaver, 2012).
240 E. EGEL
How can female would-be entrepreneurs integrate their
entrepreneurial identity within their broader self-concept?
Women aspiring to start-up a high growth business need to engage in
identity work that will help them integrate their entrepreneurial identity
successfully within their existent network of valued personal and social
identities. The identity integration process is dynamic and continuous as
new events can potentially lead to new forms of identity conflict among
multiple identities (Goss &Sadler-Smith, 2018). As I explicated above,
women’s entrepreneurial identity (esp. for innovation-driven start-ups) is
opposing to their other valued identities (e.g., a woman entrepreneur
cannot be both a mother and a computer geek). It is only when
their entrepreneurial identity becomes complementary (i.e., a woman
entrepreneur can be both a mother and a computer geek) and success-
fully interacts with the other valued identities (e.g., being a mother offers
support to starting an AI venture) (Ibarra, Snook, & Guillen Ramo,
2010;Kets&Vries,2006) that the female entrepreneur can create a new
internal model which comes in terms with and, within limits, influences
the various social identities. It is only then that the female entrepreneur
has the potential to reach a coherent self-concept (Amiot, De la Sablon-
niere, Terry, & Smith, 2007; Down & Reveley, 2009; Petriglieri &
Petriglieri, 2010). Nicholson and Carroll (2013) describe the integra-
tion process as “identity undoing” (p. 1226). It carries the challenge
that-if other identities become destabilized and unraveled—can result
in displacing or devaluing a prior or existing identity (identity loss).
With the right support, though, identity undoing can release a person’s
fixed assumptions of gender and entrepreneurship, resist the pressures of
conforming to an existing model, and open up possibilities for integrating
a new entrepreneurial identity with one’s valued identities.
How Do We Make Sure
that Identity Undoing Is Positive?
In order to transform our lived reality, we need to be fully aware of
our unconscious beliefs and how they play out to create and reinforce
our experiences. I consider that the first step toward this direction is to
adopt a different perspective on the way we evaluate reality. That means
two things: First, we need to change our system of univocal determinacy
which classifies reality into binary oppositions of “either/or”; i.e., what
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 241
is “male” cannot be “female” and vice versa. Second, we need to rede-
fine the “gender” of entrepreneurship; i.e., that not only “male” qualities
(such as aggressiveness) are important for entrepreneurship.
As I explained above, our univocal perception of the world does not
allow for reconciliation between antithetical concepts. Male/female is
another opposition within a system of homologous oppositions; such
as-up/down, above/below, light/dark, good/evil, intelligent/stupid
which divides our perception of the world into univocal “either/or”
(dualism). In between the antithetical concepts is a hiatus which does
not allow for communication and consequently influence. Nowadays, a
“male/masculine” cannot be conceived as “female/feminine” and vice
versa. If a “male” shows female qualities this is criticized as a lessening
of its “masculinity” and not as an “enrichment” of it and vice versa. The
reason for that is the prejudiced gender division of the essence and the
relationship of “male” and “female.” “Female” qualities are considered
to be of lesser quality than the “male” ones when we aim at “doing”—
success, achievement, and leadership are three examples. Also, the “male”
is more powerful than the “female” as it imposes the relational prac-
tices to be adopted. Accordingly, being a successful woman in a male
domain can be regarded as a violation of gender norms, warranting sanc-
tions. (Fletcher, 2004). The truth of this can be observed in innumerable
cases in the business world. For example, women in positions of authority
are thought too aggressive or not aggressive enough, and what appears
assertive, self-confident, or entrepreneurial in a man often looks abrasive,
arrogant, or self-promoting in a woman (Egel, 2020). In the same vein,
when women performing traditionally male roles are seen as conforming
to feminine stereotypes, they tend to be liked but are not respected. They
are judged too soft, emotional, and unassertive to make tough decisions
and to come across as sufficiently authoritative (Hellman & Okimoto,
2007).
To overcome this division, I propose that we need to shift from our
univocal (“either/or”) reasoning into an equivocal “both/end” percep-
tion of reality which accepts the space in between with its full relativity
(Desmond, 1995/2012; Van den Auweele, 2018). First Plato, in his
Dialogues, used the term “metaxu” (it means “in between” in Greek)
to describe the experience of the space between our bodily existence
and the otherness of consciousness. Postmodern thinkers have taken this
concept to develop a new model of reality; the metaxological way of
242 E. EGEL
thinking. Metaxological ontology describes the non-dialectical relation-
ality of things; the potencies of being. It leaves the in-between open
and emphasizes the interplay between sameness and difference (e.g.,
Desmond, 2016; Voegelin, 2000). Voegelin (2000) uses “metaxu” to
name the participatory mode of consciousness. The philosopher William
Desmond, the father of metaxological metaphysics, claims that nothing
is defined through itself alone. Beings are defined in a rich ontological
intermedium of happening, and are both other-relating and self-relating.
He uses the term “porosity” to describe the imagery of the in-between. It
is not a neatly bounded moment that fulfils itself in becoming an object.
The in-between is a subject that constantly transforms as, by its porous
nature, it is not impervious to interaction. In our case, metaxological
ontology would shift the prejudiced neutral ontology of patriarchy to a
less prejudiced ontology of somewhere in-between in the continuum from
male to female. This ontology would be less fixed, more fluid, defined,
and shaped continuously through interaction and not progressing teleo-
logically (e.g., Desmond, 2016; Voegelin, 2000). It would allow us to
reason that the “male” does not exclude the “female” and the one does
not need to fight against the other in order to fit into an ideal stereotypical
image of masculinity or femininity which is imbued by power dynamics. It
would reduce criticism against a man exhibiting “female” qualities (e.g.,
compassion) or a woman exhibiting “male” qualities (e.g., assertiveness).
Accordingly, both identities could be complementary and not opposing
in our self-concept; intermediaries within an endless continuum leading
from “male” to “female” and vice versa.
The metaxological reasoning could also enable us to redefine the “gen-
der” of entrepreneurship. Women who want to succeed in entrepreneur-
ship think that they have to internalize a “masculine” approach and
suppress their “inferior” “female” qualities (Egel, 2020). As a conse-
quence, female entrepreneurs experience a role conflict trying to adapt
to a prototypically male-oriented male entrepreneur identity model (Ely,
Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011). If there was no masculine domination the connec-
tion of entrepreneurship with male qualities would fade and new models
of entrepreneurship closer to a “female” conceptualization would have the
potential to come forward. Research has shown that—compared to male
entrepreneurs who focus on financial goals—female entrepreneurs tend to
pursue noneconomic goals such as balancing work and family roles and
have preferences for employee relationship and society satisfiers which in
turn may detract from economic performance or growth (Eddleston &
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 243
Powell, 2008; Jennings & Brush, 2013). Hitherto, we have criticized
such “female” approaches as success is equated with power, individualism,
and performance. Since women do not score well in this equation, our
collective mindset seems to believe that women are innately doomed to
fail. The metaxological reasoning would reduce our fixation with “what
is “and “what is not” as unaltered objects and guide us to examine every-
thing in relationship. In that case, we could re-examine the definition of
success and the purpose of business. An individualistic, “male” approach
to business has been the source of many evils in our societies. It has led
to irreparable damage of our social fabric and our environment (e.g.,
incessant competition, consumerism, depletion of natural resources). A
“metaxu” worldview would enable new potentialities; new ways to envi-
sion business. For instance, we could reimagine business as a tool to solve
societal problems and to allow individuals to express their innate creativity.
Has the time come to embrace social entrepreneurship as our mainstream
business model? How does that play out in numbers for women?
A few facts to reflect on:
An OECD working paper (Huysentruyt, 2014) found out that:
•The “gender gap” in social entrepreneurship was much smaller than
the gender gap in “mainstream” entrepreneurship, suggesting that
social entrepreneurship can be a powerful tool to increase female
entrepreneurship and participation in the labor market.
•Social enterprises led by women and men were very similar in size,
profitability, and growth.
•Women took the lead over male social entrepreneurs for new market
creation—entering/pioneering new markets. More specifically, 62%
of social ventures run by women were the first to provide this
kind of service or product in their region, country, or worldwide
in comparison with 54% of ventures run by men.
The GEM 2015 Report on Social Entrepreneurship reported similar
findings:
•The gender gap in social entrepreneurial activity was signifi-
cantly smaller than the roughly 2:1 gender gap in commercial
entrepreneurial activity found in some economies (55% male versus
45% female).
244 E. EGEL
•Female-led social enterprises seemed to be more innovative than
men-led enterprises—especially when opening up new markets. P erhaps
due to their specific sensitivity toward social needs, women social
entrepreneurs are notable ‘lead innovators’ when it comes to social
innovation.”
•Female-led social enterprises were also generally more participa-
tory in terms of management, suggesting “the power of women
social entrepreneurs to empower others (and in doing so, enabling
colleagues to learn and develop important talents and skills).”
The findings of both reports resonate well with findings drawn from
other sources of evidence. For instance, women’s participation rate in
the nonprofit sector (including paid employment) is higher than men’s
(Themudo, 2009). And even as commercial entrepreneurs, women seem
to emphasize social goals more, and economic goals less relative to their
male counterparts (Hechavarria, Renko, & Matthews, 2012). WEstart
project initiated by the European Women’s Lobby also supports the above
findings. Women social entrepreneurs from 11 EU countries were inter-
viewed and responded that their motivation to start a social enterprise
was to respond to needs in the community and make a difference. Report
further states: “In the countries studied, women described personally
experiencing and witnessing unmet needs in their community and looking
for innovative solutions that will bring about a specific social impact.
They also describe feeling a personal calling towards social issues and a
desire to make the world a better place with their work.” Interestingly,
very few women were interested in making a profit. “At the individual
level, for 31% of women, seeking to make a profit was not a motivating
factor. In relation to their household situation, the same applied with
47% of women reporting that ‘seeking to support myself or my family as a
primary earner’ was not a motivating factor. Finally, leading a social enter-
prise appears to be out of choice, since for the majority of women (68%)
unemployment or underemployment was not a motivating factor.” Even
when women considered the profitability of the enterprise to be impor-
tant—mainly, women who were unemployed or in countries undergoing
economic crisis—the social mission of the enterprise remained equally
important (WeStart Project, 2018).
The above facts call for further reflection not only by female
entrepreneurs but by all those involved in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 245
Conclusion
In this study I explored theoretically the question why the number of
start-ups by women worldwide still lags that of their male counterparts.
I first established the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy(ESE) and
entrepreneurial intention (EI). Research has shown ESE is a predictor
of an individual’s propensity to engage in entrepreneurial action. Self-
efficacy is influenced by personality traits; an important part of individuals’
personal identities. Women with low self-efficacy hesitate to start a busi-
ness; especially when this business is opportunity-driven. Then, I used a
psychodynamic lens to look into how the female entrepreneurial iden-
tity fits with the other valued identities within a female entrepreneur’s
broad self-concept. I argued that a prejudiced gendered worldview with
deep subconscious biases does not allow women’s entrepreneurial iden-
tity to be complementary with their other important identities. It is
opposing and creates identity conflict. Identity conflict leads to low self-
esteem, reduced well-being, and performance. I suggested that women
aspiring entrepreneurs need to engage in identity work in order to dissolve
the inner conflict and embrace their entrepreneurial identity as being
complementary with their other valued identities. I proposed metaxolog-
ical thinking as an ontology that can assist women reconceptualize their
entrepreneurial identity as complementary and not as opposing to their
other valued identitities.
Chapter Takeaways
•The locus of individual identity depends upon both one’s personal
identity (physical and psychological attributes) and the social identity
that is shaped from one’s relationships with others—group identities
and role identities.
•The depth and the quality of the interaction among multiple iden-
tities is better understood using a psychodynamic lens which takes
into account the impact of the unconscious (drives and forces within
a person) to the conscious.
•The prejudiced domination of the masculine has resulted in
entrepreneurship to be generally characterized as a male-type activity
in terms of both social structure and influence.
•Entrepreneurship is heavily influenced by family status and social
networks. Women hold a different view of reality that emanates from
246 E. EGEL
social structures, such as the workplace, marriage, family, and social
life.
•Female entrepreneurs view themselves as limited in the way they
understand the world around them and approach other people, but
also in their future aspirations.
•A person’s entrepreneurship identity is situated within their broader
self-concept. In becoming an entrepreneur, people face the challenge
of integrating a new entrepreneur identity with their other valued
(central) identities.
•Women aspiring to start-up a high growth business need to engage
in identity work that will help them integrate their entrepreneurial
identity successfully within their existent network of valued personal
and social identities.
•In order to transform our lived reality, we need to be fully aware
of our unconscious beliefs and how they play out to create and
reinforce our experiences.
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of
self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 18(4), 317–334.
Acs, Z. J., Arenius, P., Hay, M., & Minniti, M. (2005). Global entrepreneurship
monitor: 2004 executive report. Babson College and London Business School.
Ahl, H. (2004). The scientific reproduction of gender inequality: A discourse
analysis of research texts on women’s entrepreneurship. Liber.
Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
Aldrich, H. (1989). Networking among women entrepreneurs. Women-Owned
Businesses, 103, 132.
Altinay, L., Madanoglu, M., Daniele, R., & Lashley, C. (2012). The influ-
ence of family tradition and psychological traits on entrepreneurial intention.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 489–499.
Amiot, C. E., De la Sablonniere, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integra-
tion of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 364–388.
Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational
knowledge. Oxford University Press on Demand.
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 247
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work
and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management
Review, 24(3), 413–434.
Ashforth, B. E., & Schinoff, B. S. (2016). Identity under construction: How
individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 111–137.
Auweele, D. V. (2018). Silence, excess, and autonomy. In William desmond’s
philosophy between metaphysics, religion, ethics, and aesthetics (pp. 195–207).
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Baker, T., E. aldrich, H., & Nina, L. (1997). Invisible entrepreneurs: The
neglect of women business owners by mass media and scholarly journals in
the USA. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,9(3), 221–238.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and func-
tioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How
entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–119.
Baughn, C. C., Chua, B. L., & Neupert, K. E. (2006). The normative
context for women’s participation in entrepreneruship: A multicountry study.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 687–708.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego
depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.
Boudreaux, C. J., Nikolaev, B. N., & Klein, P. (2019). Socio-cognitive traits and
entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic institutions. Journal of
Business Venturing, 34 (1), 178–196.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2003). Symbolic violence. In Beyond French Feminisms (pp. 23–
26). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the devel-
opment of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 18(4), 63–77.
Brown, A. D., & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and learning: A
psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 102–
120.
248 E. EGEL
Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new
perspective and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (4),
5–30.
Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (2004). Clearing
the hurdles: Women building high-growth businesses . FT Press.
Brush, C., Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T., & Welter, F. (2019). A gendered look
at entrepreneurship ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 53(2), 393–408.
Buttner, E. H., & Moore, D. P. (1997). Women’s organizational exodus
to entrepreneurship: self-reported motivations and correlates with success.
Journal of Small Business Management, 35, 34–46.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial
self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business
Venturing, 13 (4), 295–316.
Cheng, C. Y., Sanders, M., Sanchez-Burks, J., Molina, K., Lee, F., Darling, E.,
& Zhao, Y. (2008). Reaping the rewards of diversity: The role of identity
integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1182–1198.
Cliff, J. E. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between
attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business
Venturing, 13 (6), 523–542.
Coleman, S. (2016). Gender, entrepreneurship, and firm performance: Recent
research and considerations of context. In M. L. Connerley & J. Wu
(Eds.), Handbook on well-being of working women (pp. 375–391). Dordrecht:
Springer Science.
Cox, L. W., Mueller, S. L., & Moss, S. E. (2002). The impact of entrepreneur-
ship education on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 1(2), 229–245.
Davis, A. E., & Shaver, K. G. (2012). Understanding gendered variations in
business growth intentions across the life course. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 36(3), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.005
08.x.
DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Cotton, N. C. (2009). Assuming the mantle:
Unpacking the process by which individuals internalize a leader identity
(pp. 213–232). Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a
theoretical and research foundation.
Desmond, W. (1995). Perplexity and ultimacy: Metaphysical thoughts from the
middle. New York: SUNY Press.
Desmond, W. (2012). Art, origins, otherness: Between philosophy and art. Suny
Press.
Desmond, W. (2016). The intimate universal: The hidden porosity among religion,
art, philosophy, and politics. Columbia University Press.
Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (1993). The
divided self: Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 249
and social roles on self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64(5), 834.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward
female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573.
Eddleston, K. A., & Powell, G. N. (2008). The role of gender identity in
explaining sex differences in business owners’ career satisfier preferences.
Journal of Business Venturing, 23(2), 244–256.
Egel, E. (2020). From “I” to “We”: Bringing inclusion and inclusiveness to the
next. Taylor and Francis Group.
Elam, A. B. (2014). Gender and entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account:
Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–493.
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender,
power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647–
661.
Ford, D., & Mouzas, S. (2010). Interacted service in business networks. In IMP
Group (Hrsg., 2010), 26th IMP Conference Proceedings. Budapest.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research.
Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 21–42.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1988). Narrative and the self as relationship.
In Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 21, pp. 17–56). Academic
Press.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17 (2), 183–
211.
Goss, D., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2018). Opportunity creation: Entrepreneurial
agency, interaction, and affect. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2),
219–236.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of
gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become
an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 397–417.
Haus, I., Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2013). Gender effects on
entrepreneurial intention: A meta-analytical structural equation model. Inter-
national Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5, 130–156. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17566261311328828
Hechavarria, D. M., Renko, M., & Matthews, C. H. (2012). The nascent
entrepreneurship hub: Goals, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and start-up
outcomes. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 685–701.
Hechavarria, D. M., Terjesen, S. A., Ingram, A. E., Renko, M., Justo, R., &
Elam, A. (2017). Taking care of business: The impact of culture and gender
250 E. EGEL
on entrepreneurs’ blended value creation goals. Small Business Economics,
48(1), 225–257.
Hellman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalised for success
at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(1), 81–92.
Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. (2010). Becoming a founder: How founder role iden-
tity affects entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding. Journal of
Business Venturing, 25 (1), 41–53.
Huysentruyt, M. (2014). Women’s Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Working
Papers, 2014/01, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jx
zkq2sr7d4-en.
Ibarra, H. S., Snook, S., & Guillen Ramo, L. (2010). Identity-based leader
development. Leadership: Advancing an intellectual discipline, 657–678.
Jennings, J. E., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Research on women entrepreneurs:
Challenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature? Academy of
Management Annals, 7 (1), 661–713.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). Leadership archetype questionnaire: Facilitator
guide. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD Global Leadership Centre.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-
concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 133–152.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9),
954.
Marlow, S. (2002). Regulating labor management in small firms. Human
Resource Management Journal, 12(3), 25–43.
Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance,
and gender. Entrepreneurship Theor y and Practice, 29 (6), 717–735.
McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009).
Entrepreneurial self–efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 33(4), 965–988.
Monitor, G. E. (2018). GEM 2018/2019 global report.
Monitor, G. E. (2019). Monitor 2018–2019. Global Entrepreneurship Research
Association (GERA).
Mueller, S. L., & Goi´c, S. (2003). East-West differences in entrepreneurial self-
efficacy: Implications for entrepreneurship education in transition economies.
International Journal for Entrepreneurship Education, 1(4), 613–632.
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 29 (2), 172–191.
Nicholson, H., & Carroll, B. (2013). Identity undoing and power relations in
leadership development. Human Relations, 66(9), 1225–1248.
13 WHAT HINDERS ME FROM MOVING AHEAD? GENDER … 251
Orobia, L., & Rooks, G. (2011). Risk taking and start-up capital: Exploring
gender differences in Uganda, through an international comparison. Journal
of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 3(2), 83–93.
Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and ecstasy
in the gig economy: Cultivating holding environments for precarious and
personalized work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64 (1), 124–
170.
Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. L. (2010). Identity workspaces: The case of
business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(1),
44–60.
Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in finan-
cial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology,
18(6), 605–628.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneur-
ship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’
personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385.
Reveley, J., & Down, S. (2009). Stigmatization and self-presentation in
Australian entrepreneurial identity formation. The politics and aesthetics of
entrepreneurship: A fourth movements in entrepreneurship book (pp. 162–182).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W., & Autio, E. (2004). GEM 2003 executive report.
Babson College, London Business School, EM Kauffman Foundation.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theo-
retical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society,
18(4), 510–531.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction.
Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 191–216.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement
in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (4), 655–684.
Sequeira, J. M., Mueller, S. L., & McGee, J. E. (2007). The influence of social
ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and motivating
nascent behavior. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 275–293.
Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity
centrality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 487–500.
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman-Upton, N. (1990). Female and male entrepreneurs:
Psychological characteristics and their role in gender-related discrimination.
Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 29–36.
Shibley Hyde, J., & Kling, K. C. (2001). Women, motivation, and achievement.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25(4), 364–378.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance
theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25 (6), 845–880.
252 E. EGEL
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among the homeless: The
verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of
Sociology, 92(6), 1336–1371.
Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between
entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(1), 145.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity
theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). An integrative theor y of group conflict. The
social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Themudo, N. S. (2009). Gender and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38 (4), 663–683.
Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101–112.
Tsai, K. H., Chang, H. C., & Peng, C. Y. (2016). Extending the link between
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: A moderated mediation model.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 445–463.
Van Der Zee, K., Atsma, N., & Brodbeck, F. (2004). The influence of social
identity and personality on outcomes of cultural diversity in teams. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3), 283–303.
Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E., & Van
Gils, A. (2008). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory
of planned behaviour. Career Development International,13(6), 538-559.
Voegelin, E. (2000). Order and history (vol. 5). In search of order [Collected
works of Eric Voegelin, vol. 18].
Welpe, I. M., Spörrle, M., Grichnik, D., Michl, T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2012).
Emotions and opportunities: The interplay of opportunity evaluation, fear,
joy, and anger as antecedent of entrepreneurial exploitation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice,36 (1), 69–96.
Westart Project. (2018). Research project conducted by Women lobby. Retrieved
from site https://womenlobby.org/?lang=en on 15 July, 2020.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational
management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-
efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(6), 1265.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of person-
ality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Management, 36(2), 381–404.
CHAPTER 14
Reviewing Representations of the Ubiquitous
“Entrepreneurs Wife”
Robert Smith and Lorraine Warren
Introduction
The Rose Review of female entrepreneurship (Rose 2019: 2) highlighted
an “unacceptable disparity between female and male entrepreneurship”
in the UK which effects entrepreneurial gender equality, resulting in
significant levels of unrealized potential. According to Rose, statistically
only one in three UK entrepreneurs are female. Extant research suggests
entrepreneurship is embedded in collaborations and relationships between
people. Yet to date, too much emphasis has been placed on the “male
centric” ideology of entrepreneurship (Ahl & Marlow, 2012; Deacon,
Harris, & Worth, 2014); and on the heroic entrepreneur (Anderson
&Warren,2011) when the entrepreneur patently operates within such
relationships. Using the statistics of Rose (2019) it is evident that if
only in three UK entrepreneurs are female then two-thirds of male
R. Smith (B)
Aberdeen, Scotland
L. Warren
Southhampton, UK
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_14
253
254 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
entrepreneurs will have a wife involved in the business to a certain extent.
Thus, despite the growing appreciation of the powerbase and dynamics of
entrepreneurial activity and a developing academic interest in the socially
constructed and gendered nature of entrepreneurial narrative and iden-
tity (Al-Dajani, Bika, Collins, & Swail, 2014) the pivotal role played by
the wives of entrepreneurs is an under-researched phenomenon. Such
wives (Basu, 2004; Bowman, 2009;Martin&Guarnieri,2014) play a
significant role in the lives, achievements, and successes of entrepreneurs
and influence their unfolding entrepreneurial identities and narratives.
Nevertheless, the ubiquitous “Entrepreneurs wife” is a silent, and arguably
silenced, entrepreneurial actor, as evidenced the paucity of academic
articles on the topic. Moreover, there is a growing literature on how
media representations of female entrepreneurs are portrayed (see Achten-
hagen & Welter, 2011; Eikhoff, Summers, & Carter 2013; Nicholson &
Anderson, 2005; Radu & Redien-Collot, 2008) negatively and trivialized
in comparison to their male entrepreneurial peers. We seek to establish if
the wives of entrepreneurs are similarly constructed.
The term “Entrepreneurs wife” (singular) or “Entrepreneurs’ wives ”
(plural) is potentially controversial, possessing as it does a narrow speci-
ficity, assuming a patriarchal dominance vis-a-vis the ascribed gender of
the entrepreneur. There are only a small number of studies which touch
upon the topic such as those of Basu (2004), Bowman (2009), and
Martin and Guarnieri (2014) as discussed in the literature review below.
This highlights an evident gap in the literature worthy of further research.
Thus, what we know at present is that there is a dearth of research into
this entrepreneurial category despite there being numerous media repre-
sentations of said wives that either present them in a less than flattering
light, or worse ignores them. This research investigates this research gap
to synthesize a protean literature and by examining what the representa-
tions actually tell us. Therefore, our main contribution is to posit the
“Entrepreneurs wife” as an entrepreneurial typology in her own right;
and as a construct worthy of further research. Additionally, the signifi-
cance of this contribution is to shed light on the importance of wives to
the success of their partners. Consequentially, we explore an interesting
construction of gender at work and neglected gendered identity. We seek
to raise awareness of this often invisible, yet stereotypical figure.
This chapter focuses on academic and media representations of
“Entrepreneurs wives” and in doing so uncovers some generic features
relating to the manner in which they are marginalized, exploited, etc.
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 255
In the process, we explore an under-researched area of entrepreneurial
narrative and identity to shed new theoretical and conceptual light on the
“private lives” of entrepreneurs. The research focus is both upon the wives
and media representations of them. This makes it necessary to synthe-
size an explanatory literature. A more nuanced understanding is necessar y
because at present the wife of an entrepreneur is either ignored or she is
treated as an appendage when in reality they play a significant role in the
development of the business. This chapter seeks to address two research
questions from the literature reviewed, namely—How are “Entrepreneurs
wives” portrayed in the media and in academic discourse? And—What can
we learn from the study?
Some Brief Methodological Considerations
The review methodology used is qualitative in nature and consists of a
mixed methodology of netnography (Kozinets, 2009;2010) and media
analysis techniques (as per Altheide & Schneider, 2013) including “ethno-
graphic content analysis.” Netnography is helpful for studying under-
researched topics, enabling unobtrusive and covert ways to gain deeper
insights into opinions, motives, and concerns (Langer & Beckmann,
2005).
We began by examining well-known celebrity entrepreneurs and their
wives such as the late Gordon and Ina Baxter, Sir Richard Branson and
his second wife Joan Templeman; Alan Sugar and his wife Anne Simons;
James Caan and his wife Aisha; Peter Jones and his wife Tara; and Sir
Philip and Christina “Tina” Green. Lady Green is an entrepreneur in her
own right. Ina Baxter was a positive role model for female entrepreneur-
ship (see Smith, 2017). However, issues of selection were complicated
by the fact that the iconic Branson was previously married to Kristen
Tomassi; Lady Green was previously married to businessman Robert Palos;
and because all are high profile celebrity entrepreneurs/CEO’s (See Guthey,
Clark, & Jackson, 2009; Muda, Musa, Naina, & Borhan, 2014 for a wider
discussion of this phenomenon). It quickly became apparent to us that
to better understand the phenomenon we had to conduct an extensive
review of such representations and the academic literature.
256 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
Synthesizing Literature on Entrepreneurs Wives
The extant literature on gender and entrepreneurship focuses on the
traditional assumption that the entrepreneur is a man (Ahl & Marlow,
2012) albeit there are many ways of doing gender differently (Mavin &
Grandy, 2012). Nevertheless, the female as entrepreneur (as an exagger-
ated expression of femininity) is not the only possible entrepreneurial role
available for a woman. Hamilton (2006) argues that the role of women in
family businesses is relatively under investigated. This fact underpins our
lack of understanding of the role played by the wives of entrepreneurs.
One of the issues that obscure wives from view is the fact that at present
there is not an appropriate theoretical base in relation to the topic. This
may be because too often researchers concentrate on the procedural and
business elements of the entrepreneurship paradigm at the expense of
the more deeply personal driving forces (see Down, 2007;DeVries,
2009 for examples of significant exceptions). The monograph of Down
(2007) was seminal because he incorporated family and personal life of
the entrepreneurs he studied as part of his research design. Similarly,
the work of De Vries (2009) is refreshing because he considers deeply
personal issues such marriage, love, and sex as variables in the life choices
of entrepreneurs and CEOs in their quest for authenticity. This review, of
necessity focuses on a wide range of topics and themes to highlight the
nuances of the “wives” literature and media representations of them. A
detailed trawl of extant literature revealed that it was diverse and char-
acterized both by its paucity and specificity. The literature either merely
touches upon the topic or deals with specific business issues. Perhaps this
is to be expected, given the novel nature of the topic. Indeed, there is
an evident dearth of literature that deals specifically with the topic per
se. Extant studies span the media and academic domains and although
there are many negative representations of wives, overall its focus is on
the supportive role of women. We examine both media and academic
representations.
Media Representations
Such representations are found in media and press coverage of
entrepreneurs including biographies, books, and in the popular
press—particularly tabloids. The most visible representations of the
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 257
“Entrepreneurs wife” are found in biographies and tabloids which concen-
trate on celebrity, male entrepreneurs.
Biographical and tabloid representations: We restrict our search to a
UK based context to avoid cultural and regional factors which may
influence the data collected and therefore the nuances of the research.
We analyzed these publicly available representations albeit the issue of
celebrity may skew the established entrepreneurial narrative because of
the nature of journalistic practices (both because of often salacious nature
of investigative journalism and the intrusive nature of the paparazzi)
and because celebrities are equally celebrated and vilified and accord-
ingly exert an influence that is pervasive, but difficult to evaluate and
explain. According to Guthey et al. celebrity actions, personalities and
private lives function symbolically to represent significant dynamics and
tensions prevalent in the contemporary business environment. In such
narratives, the story becomes more than about them and their partners
as the inherent themes of heroism, villainy are amplified because of the
perennial nature of the manufactured backlash against them. A scoping-
pilot study was conducted using the above named. Emergent themes were
of bossy, overly directive wives and the media stories were often artic-
ulated as “slurs,” “jibes,” and “accusations” against the masculinity or
manhood of the male entrepreneur. Accusations of greed, dishonesty
largesse, hedonism, extravagant lifestyles, and conspicuous consumption
predominated with the anti-capitalist “Fat Cat” slur (Cammett, 2005;
Littler, 2007) being commonplace. It was evident that with high profile,
celebrity entrepreneurs the stories were more about societal criticisms
than about the individuals’ legitimate entrepreneurial narrative and that
the stories were potentially biased and infused with what “Tabloid Inti-
macy” (Littler, 2007). Male billionaire entrepreneurs with interests in and
expensive investments in horse breeding-racing, vintage cars, yachting,
and flying were specifically singled out for vilification by journalists.
We surmised that as a theme it was not so much negativity about the
entrepreneurs themselves per se but more of a socially constructed societal
aversion to hedonism, avarice, and conspicuous consumption. Celebrity
entrepreneurs’ wives are treated pejoratively and subject to discrimina-
tion and prejudice. In biographies of entrepreneurs and in the popular
press representations of “Entrepreneurs wives” are often pejorative and
pervaded by stereotypical representations of a derogatory nature such as
the WAG category [Wives and Girlfriends] (Bullen, 2014; Johnson &
258 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
Kaye, 2004) and the “Mistress” (Alexander, 1987). Such claims are patri-
archal, misogynistic tropes of a derogatory nature and include stereotypes
such as gold-digging (Siegal, 2004; Vera, Berardo, & Berardo, 1987)and
reflect common sense interpretations of observed and reported behaviors.
What such tropes elide is the complexity of the exchange between part-
ners as alluded to in this chapter. Partners can clearly exploit each other or
be perceived to be doing so. That the wives of celebrity entrepreneurs are
used by the media to further their stories, is hardly surprising nor is the
fact that much is made of the “trophy-wife” (Vera et al., 1987)andthe
wife as a mechanism for tax avoidance. Other common stories relate to
extravagant lifestyles, hedonism, and conspicuous consumption (Veblen,
2005).
Nevertheless, the majority of stories were positive and relate to fidelity
and successful, long-term, loving relationships with childhood sweet-
hearts. Fidelity is a strong theme in the narratives, and this resonates
with the arguments of Stanley (2000) who found that successful million-
aire couples have long-standing marriages. Only a small number relates to
infidelity and womanizing. Some wives are cast as “domestic goddesses”
and “home-makers.” There is a discernible UK media bias in the coverage
and many of the themes and their nuances may only be applicable in UK
cases.
Representations in the popular press: In the popular press and in the
genre of “How to books” there is a focus on women’s roles and tensions
in personal and business relationships and thus relational dynamics. There
is a focus on relationship advice to overcome the challenges and obstacles
facing the wives of entrepreneurs. This literature consists of journal-
istic articles and books (see Hirshberg, 2010,2012; Hymowitz, 2012;
Williams, 2012). As such the tone and message is different from academic
articles. The article of Williams (2012) stresses that the “spouses” of
an entrepreneur are critical to their success, but their exploits are often
unsung. Williams debunks the myth of an idyllic lifestyle of high income,
time off, and extended vacations arguing that the entrepreneurial life is
a tornado of long hours, high risk, and uncertainty. Williams stresses
that despite good intentions, entrepreneurs can be the world’s worst
spouses, typically investing the majority of their time and interest in their
companies, even during prosperous times. Furthermore, she highlights
the high incidence of personal wealth loss, marital troubles, and divorce
that can accrue from failed business marriages. Hirshberg (2010) high-
lights the high divorce rates of entrepreneurs, citing common causes
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 259
such as financial strain, neglect, lack of communication, and divergent
goals often leading to a toxic cocktail of resentment and anxiety created
by putting the family’s security constantly at risk. Elsewhere, Hirshberg
(2012) addresses topics such as how to handle the failure of a start-up,
the strains of serial entrepreneurship, and how to handle extra stresses
that happen when a company owner falls ill. She urges entrepreneurs
and their families to strive for and focus on the “magic moments”
which outweigh the negative aspects. In relation to the negative, there
are reports of the wealthy wives of businessmen achieving substantial
settlements on divorcing their wealthy entrepreneur-husbands (see Baker,
1998). There is also an alternative side to the paradigm as evidenced by
Hymowitz (2012) who reported that with the growing rise of female
CEO’s and entrepreneurs that many husbands choose to become their
powerful wives Chief Domestic Officers and “stay-at-home-dads.” Chas-
serio, Lebegue and Poroli (2014) argue that female entrepreneurs often
draw upon emotional support from their partners. The literature search
only unearthed one academic study of the term “Entrepreneurs husband”
carried out by Nikina et al. (2015) who explored the changes in the
role of the husband of Scandinavian female entrepreneurs and how these
affect the marriage and their relationship with the business. This iden-
tified implicit and specific gender-based patterns of dominance between
husband and wife which affected levels of marital harmony and spousal
support. These changing roles alter marriage dynamics and influence the
men’s wife–business relationship. Interestingly, such husbands do not face
the same negative levels of criticism.
Academic Representations
The propensity of women to be energetically entrepreneurial has been
posited by Smith (2009) in the form of the “The Diva” stereo-
type. In addition, D’Andria and Gabarret (2017) posit the category of
women in entrepreneurial careers. Nevertheless, the gender imbalance in
entrepreneurial equality as highlighted by Rose is a palpable and well-
established facet of the academic literature (Mulholland, 1997,2003a,
2003b,1996). Academic representations of women in business generally
relate to aspects of gendered entrepreneurial identity, female stereotypes
associated with entrepreneurial identity and to life cycles and stages. Such
diverse representations include the Co-preneur, The Good Wife, and the
Matriarch.
260 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
The gender imbalance in entrepreneurial equality: Women
entrepreneurs and women in business suffer from a “double bind”
(Litz, 2011) having to take care of the twin and often conflicting profes-
sional and familio-marital business dimensions. According to Nye (1988)
feminist explanatory theories are steeped in the philosophies of men and
the patriarchal, practice of misogyny. It is apparent from readings that
women are socialized into acceptance of these norms and behaviors and
are thus silenced. This gender imbalance begins before the women even
marries and is inherent in relation to wealth creation and accumulation
in capitalist western societies, particularly in family business (Mulholland,
1997,2003a,2003b). Mulholland (1996) challenged the popular image
of middle and upper-class women, being beneficiaries and consumers
of wealth and of men as the central agents in wealth creation, arguing
that while such women were active in the generation of wealth, they
do not receive due recognition, marginalizing them in the management
and ownership of wealth. Mulholland blames this on a process of wealth
formation in which gender relations are underpinned by patriarchal
practices. This ordering propels male kin to positions of power and
influence while overshadowing females. Moreover, Mulholland (2003a)
examined the relationship between domesticity, emotion as absence and
enterprise. She drew on Ochberg’s (1987) argument that contemporary
men merely act out their emotional family role to explore the dynamics
of the sexual division of labor and the relationship between home and
work. Men generally disinvest in domesticity because work activity is
so pervasive it invades and colonizes family life ordering domestic life
despite most enterprising men drawing a sharp distinction between
work and home. Control of the household falls to wives extending a
permutation of capitalist logic to the household. The men’s absence from
the house and their preference for disengagement from the messy arena
of emotional work obscure the extent to which they attempt to regulate.
Furthermore, Mulholland (2003b) explored the career paths of husband
and wife partnerships in family firmsestablishing the presence of female
kin subordination and male kin domination as wealth is accumulated
within the business. Business growth has very different outcomes for
wives and husbands. Male partners in parallel with the growth of the
business carve out careers as chief executives while female partners are
cannot make the transition from the stereotypical image of “helpmate”
to company professional. Mulholland suggests that such women are
systematically marginalized from the nucleus of organizational power
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 261
and are excluded from the family business, its managerial structures,
specialization of function, and its bureaucratic processes.
The work of Heikkinen (2014) is of note because she argues that a
male manager’s career unfolds in tandem with their family life, as well
as the norms and gender roles related to family. Heikkinen developed
a typology distinguishing four types of female spouses, i.e., supporting,
balance-seeking, care-providing, and success-expecting types. Women in
business possess overlapping identities and try to present a rational and
logical persona as business leaders while avoiding being intuitive and
emotive because these feminine traits are inappropriate at work. Such
traits belong at home but ironically women can express their femininity
and maternalism at work because being a “good mother” is a desired ideal
embedded in work and at home (Martin, Jerrard, & Wright, 2019).
This stream of literature is important in illustrating the unequal
character of the marriage as the business partnership magnifies the contra-
dictions of the class gender nexus in the coordination of the role of
wife and business partner in the family enterprise. Women even from
a business family background are disadvantaged even before marrying
an entrepreneur or starting a business with their partner. In practice,
it is not as straight forward as theory suggests because as Hamilton
(2006) reported, there is a tension and confusion around authority
between the “entrepreneur-husband” and wife stressing that while there is
complicity between both, far from being marginalized through the forces
of patriarchy or paternalism, wives engage with and narrate alternative
gender discourses and practices that paradoxically evidence complicity and
resistance to patriarchy. Marital tension is evident in the literature.
The Co-preneurial heroine: When one considers hidden dimensions of
the role of women in business and particularly in relation to entrepreneur-
ship theory, the obvious theoretical plank is that of Co-preneurship
(Bensemann & Hall, 2010;DeBruin&Lewis,1994,2004; Marshack,
1994) whereby couples share ownership, commitment, and responsibility
for a business. As it stands the theory is used to represent a heroic
union whereby both the male entrepreneur and his wife engage equally
in the marriage and the business. However, it is not universally appli-
cable as it does not cover every example of a marriage where the wife is
involved in the business. As a theory, it has considerable utility because it
is ostensibly asexual and agendered and relates to both heterosexual and
homosexual couples, married or not. However, the assumption of gender
equality within co-preneurial businesses is merely a taken-for-granted one
262 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
in that little research has been conducted into the balance of responsi-
bilities in such ventures. The category of “Fellowship Tales”(Smith&
Neergaard, 2015) is of relevance as it allows a dual entrepreneurial voice
to co-preneurial couples.
The Good Wife: Wives can be devoted to both marriage and the
business without being a co-preneur. Many wives help their entrepreneur-
husbands without having a specified role in the business. Other relevant
theoretical categories include “committed couples” in business (Ashton-
Hodgson, 2005); the “CEO spouse” or wives of owner-managers (Poza
& Messer, 2001); and the “good wife” (Lewis & Massey, 2011). Lewis
and Massey looked beyond the “visible women” (those running busi-
nesses as owner–managers or partners) to a focus on the invisible without
clearly acknowledged and/or formalized roles. Such wives play critical,
often unseen, unpaid, and unacknowledged “behind the scenes”rolesin
line with the notions of “wifeliness”andthe“idealized wife” (Russell,
2005). Goffee & Scase (2015) refer to the entrepreneurial category of
the “Women in charge” for whom entrepreneurship is a means to achieve
economic and social independence. They refute the notion of a single
entrepreneurial experience arguing that the causes and consequences of
business start-up are conditioned by the extent to which women are
committed to traditionally prescribed roles.
Martin and Guarnieri (2014) highlighted the existence of extensive
research into the “assistant” or “helpers” role often assumed by the
entrepreneur’s wife (Basu, 2004) but nevertheless the literature is under-
developed. Basu (2004) distinguished between business aspirations in
relation to those with business-first, family-first, money-first, and lifestyle-
first aspirations, arguing that family background affects entrepreneurs’
aspirations and in particular their stage on the family life cycle. Bowman
(2009) highlighted the unwritten, gender-based “deal” and explored how
wives make sense of the conflicts between their husbands’ intense engage-
ment with entrepreneurial business activity and their own belief in the idea
of egalitarian intimate relationships. Bowman counselled against looking
at family life in isolation from market work, or vice versa because there is
a danger of distortion in relation to our understanding of both. Bowman
found evidence of the continuation of the gender-based deal in contem-
porary business practices. She stressed that belief in this deal not only
shapes the choices that individual men and women make but shapes the
nature of market and non-market life. This so-called deal has become
naturalized and inevitable. As a result, the rules that govern resource use
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 263
and the accumulation of different forms of capital have not been nego-
tiated and remain non-negotiable. The study of Martin and Guarnieri
(2014) scrutinized the role of “the wife” of a small business owner in
occupational risk management. They found little differentiation in social
relationships that characterize the business and the small business owner
(and obviously the personal dynamics of their relationship). Martin and
Guarnieri established that male entrepreneurs rely heavily on their wives
to fulfil regulatory and other business obligations such as complying with
risk management and health and safety and regulations. As result, the
ubiquitous “Entrepreneurs Wife” is expected to take charge of the detail
and to delegate tasks to allow her husband to run the business smoothly.
The wives possess an elevated status within the family and the business but
face resistance, restrictions, and limitations to the performance of their
role. Indeed, as a genre, wives are conscientious in fulfilling her duties
while overcoming organizational and symbolic challenges.
Also, relevance is the doctoral thesis of Cosson (2017) who studied
the roles played by wives weaving the thread of work and family life
in crafting a family business. They do so in dynamic, complex, and
often invisible ways exercising power in a commonsensical way, circum-
venting entrepreneurial identity. Cosson suggests that wives are often not
comfortable inhabiting an entrepreneurial identity and that the demands
of entrepreneurial ideology are met more readily by husbands than wives.
Instead, women “reflect back” to men their heroic masculine discourse.
Cosson argues that wives exert a powerful force in undermining succes-
sion planning and are influential in trying to manage it while crafting the
future of the business via a “discourse of choice.” For Cosson, the uncou-
pling of gender from traditional precepts is overstated and rather, women
achieve uneven recognition and status, highlighting the coexistence of
equality with enduring masculine privilege.
The Matriarch: Smith (2014,2018) posited the stereotypes of the
“Matriarch” and “The Dowager” to signify life stages in the evolution of
the identity of the wives of entrepreneurs. What unites these stereotypes
is that they are both important, positive gendered entrepreneurial role
driven identities. In addition, the study of Moult and Anderson (2005)
into the mature, enterprising women with reduced domestic respon-
sibilities who exploit specific “windows of entrepreneurial opportunity”
evident in women’s life stages is also of interest. Similarly, Stirzaker and
Sitko (2018), using positionality as a lens explored the complexity of
the lived multiple identities of older women entrepreneurs (50+) paying
264 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
attention to how they engage with intersecting discourses surrounding
enterprise culture and aging while constructing their identities. The
outcomes of these dimensions are largely positive and demonstrate the
life enhancing benefits of these overlaps. Again, tension is a key theme in
the discourse particularly between the storied identities of “mother ”and
“entrepreneur.” They demonstrated a synergy between the intersection
of older women entrepreneurs’ social identities and their entrepreneurial
identity, albeit dependent upon the context and stage of life for these
women, underpinned by both agency and external factors.
From a comparative close reading of the literatures there are obvious
trait-based behaviors evident in the literature—namely acceptance of limi-
tations, commitment, consciousnesses, crafting gender accepted familial
narratives, delegation, independence, longevity of relationship, persever-
ance, responsibility, resistance, and “reflecting back” accepted gender-
based roles (the masculine entrepreneurial halo). Several articles focus on
relationship advice and overcoming challenges (emotional, financial, orga-
nizational, and symbolic) and obstacles (including confusion in relation to
issues of power and authority, divorce, the negative perception of female
entrepreneurs, marital problems) to entrepreneurial and personal success.
All these can be accommodated under the rubrics of external context and
individual agency. The overall message is that it is overfocused on the
taken-for-grantedness of wives or discriminatory dominant/subordinate
relationship. Despite these studies, there is an evident gap in the literature
relating to how “Entrepreneurs wives” are portrayed in the popular press,
media, and academic discourse. Overarching themes include “invisibility”
and “indifference.” To recap, there are four main obstacles to its accep-
tance as an established and legitimate research category, or entrepreneurial
type in her own right.
1. The invisibility and indifference emanate from media-inspired nega-
tive perception of female entrepreneurs in comparison to the eulo-
gized male entrepreneur (and his blinding halo). This underpins the
lack of acceptance of wives as serious entrepreneurial actors because
if the entrepreneur is considered male-gendered then associated
female entrepreneurial types are thus less worthy;
2. The “double bind” whereby women are expected to shoulder
domestic responsibilities as well as professional ones prevent the wife
from adopting a more visible role. This results in a “gender deal”
whereby women who shoulder responsibility for supporting their
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 265
husband’s entrepreneurial ambitions reflect in that glory and make
that narrative their own;
3. This is magnified by male entrepreneurs’ overreliance on their wives
for domestic and professional tasks thus masking the wife from view
in both business and family; and
4. These factors combine to create tensions which accrue around both
personal and business relationships and dynamics. There is a definite
tension between the forces of marginalization and empowerment
and a focus on roles and a tension between performing support
and help-based tasks and taking the initiative versus planning and
scheming.
Considering Empirical Representations
of Entrepreneurs Wives
Smith and Warren (2018) analyzed the “Management Today” data set
(https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/top100entrepreneurs) consisting
of the top 100 UK entrepreneurs (male and female) by wealth, mining
it for salient data. It proved difficult to locate details of the male
entrepreneur’s wives with over half of the entrepreneurs on the list having
no publically available information on their wives. It was necessary to
extend and expanded the research parameters to include internet searches,
searches in the press and biographies to obtain usable data on the wives.
They conducted searches to locate internet and newspaper articles on the
subjects. This trawl also located Facebook and LinkedIn profiles which
were mostly privacy protected. It was necessary to extend the search to
company websites to locate a photograph of the subject to confirm and
corroborate that the entries related to that individual. When this process
failed separate searches of Bloomberg and Companies House helped iden-
tify spousal details. Where these searches failed to locate such details, we
removed the subjects from the database. It is of note that only eight
subjects had photographs of themselves and their wives in the public
domain. Data collection proved to be problematic because although we
know a lot of background detail on celebrity entrepreneurs who have
published biographies, or feature in the press, we know little about
less visible entrepreneur and their partners. So, unless the entry related
celebrities locating even the names of wives, let alone details of their
personal lives was difficult. This phase highlighted that wives are often
266 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
markedly “invisible.” While we appreciate that many female entrepreneurs
use “hiding” as a mechanism to remain invisible from critical scrutiny
(Weidhaas, 2018), being invisible to the media is not the same as being
invisible in a gendered sense. It is a distinct form of invisibility.
One of the problems is that as a category it is quite broad as there is
no such thing as the ubiquitous wife. A few stories relate to wives who are
entrepreneurial in their own right. A small proportion had other profes-
sional careers with no apparent link to their husband’s businesses fitting
the category of “The Independent Woman” (Siegal, 2004). Privacy is a key
theme with many of the newspaper or internet articles expressing that the
entrepreneurs, their wives, and families were intensely private. Reasons
for this include—(1) Many business families avoid interviews with jour-
nalists preferring to keep their family stories private and to control their
own narratives; (2) Many avoid social media for the same reasons; and
(3) In an age of prenups and nondisclosure agreements family secrets
remain private. Also, if divorce, turmoil and feuding feature then tabloid
press exposure follows with the entrepreneur and family being pilloried.
While female entrepreneurs are frequently asked about their domestic
arrangements (see for example Hamilton, 2013; Lyer, 2009; Eikhoff
et al., 2013) male entrepreneurs are seldom asked about such. Despite
the negativity uncovered in representations of wives long-standing spousal
relations enhance entrepreneurial performance.
Smith and Warren (2018) also considered the overarching category
of “significant others” (Williams, 2012), encompassing a more universal,
generic signifier which covers all partners/spouses of entrepreneurs. It
avoids the loaded and gendered stereotype associated with wives per
se. However, although it is ostensibly asexual and agendered it has yet
to feature significantly in either sociological and/or gender research.
According to the Collins online dictionary the term “significant other”
is defined as “…a person having importance in, or influence on, another’s
life”; and “a person with whom one has an intimate, often long -term and
usually sexual, relationship.” The term implies intimacy, shared values, and
stability. It is surprising that there is an absence of literature on same-sex
entrepreneurial couples.
A protean socially constructed typology of “Entrepreneurs wives”
emerges in the form of an enacted, storied identity with associated
trait-based behaviors, ideologically and role-based positions set against
obstacles and challenges (see Fig. 14.1 below).
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 267
Fig. 14.1 A conceptual model of spousal entrepreneurial identity (Source Smith
&Warren,2018)
Further Discussion,
Interpretation, and Conclusion
To answer the research questions, it can be argued that representations of
“Entrepreneurs wives” are socially constructed in academic literature via
exposure to the media and particularly the tabloids. There are two main
positions for “Entrepreneurs wives”—namely to be (1) vilified; and (2) to
be invisible. Being invisible is the one most encountered in this study. To
be of interest to the media an entrepreneur has to be a high-net worth
celebrity and be prone to scandal or other socially prescribed behaviors
(such as committing a criminal act, divorce, having an affair, engaging
in a family feud, or other personal fall from grace) which make them
news worthy. They are hounded, haunted, and humbled by the media.
Significant others and extended family are often considered “fair game”
268 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
by the media losing control of their narrative and their identities and
damage to their personal and/or business reputations. However, if the
entrepreneur and their family choose to remain private and do not fall foul
of personal problems, they can control their own narratives and thus iden-
tities by opting for privacy and avoiding the press and social media. So,
what can we learn from the study? Obviously, from a behavioral perspec-
tive, wives can choose to avoid hedonistic and other negative behaviors
in their personal and business lives, behaving legally and morally and
avoiding negative publicity which taints identities. However, the majority
of entrepreneurs and their wives live ordinary family lives and the media
glare. This calls for different, qualitative methodologies to be used to
develop our understanding of this important phenomenon.
Moreover, the “Entrepreneur’s Wives ” phenomenon is important
because if as identified by Rose (2019) 2/3rds of entrepreneurs in the
UK are male then statistically, the vast majority of men will have a wife
who contributes formally or informally to the success of the business. If
we better understood the ways in which such wives can sustain the success
of the business while adding value to the business and wider economy,
it would unleash the potential of more women on their entrepreneurial
journey. According to Rose (2019: 35) women are as successful as men
at sustaining businesses. There is scope to utilize such a potentially skilled
and skillful workforce in a business administration and managerial capacity
so that they can get the credit, rewards, and recognition that they deserve,
positively addressing gender parity. For women becoming an entrepreneur
should not be the sole pathway to entrepreneurial success. Tapping into
this rich neglected resource is a very real possibility.
One could argue that as a category, “Entrepreneurs Wives ” is simply
too broad to encompass all its sub-types and as such they are not
ubiquitous. As a concept, it is certainly a valid one worthy of further
study. We have demonstrated that such wives are powerful entrepreneurial
actors who perform a variety of roles beyond those of the stereotyp-
ical roles of “Mistress” and “Matriarch” (Smith, 2014). Indeed, they
perform other traditional archetypal roles of deser ving (and sometimes
undeserving wives—see Bowman, 2009). Nevertheless, in these days of
political correctness and gender (in)equality there is some merit in the
“catch-all” category of the “significant-other” as a non-offensive category
because from an epistemological, ontological, and axiological perspective
human experience cannot always be neatly labelled, nor categorized into
discreet entities (Ahl & Marlow, 2012).
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 269
Chapter Takeaways
1. This chapter challenges current emphasis on the “male centric”
(Ahl and Marlow, 2012; Deacon, Harris, & Worth, 2014) ideology
of entrepreneurship; and the entrepreneur as an individual hero
(Anderson & Warren, 2011).
2. To be provocative, the ubiquitous “Entrepreneurs wife ” may well be
“a-good-little-helper” and support her husband to achieve his ends,
reflecting and basking in his glory but that is only one part of the
construct because they exert a hidden agency.
3. This research deepens our understanding of gendered
entrepreneurial identities and narratives associated with
“Entrepreneurs Wives” because developing a deeper understanding
of the personal sides of entrepreneurial couples is helpful to
policymakers in understanding the entrepreneurial personality
(as understood by Chell, 2008) more holistically because of the
financial stability that a long-term partnership can bring to an
entrepreneurial venture.
4. Moreover, understanding the entrepreneur, and entrepreneurial
behavior and practice from a more socialized perspective advances
our understanding of entrepreneurial practice and practices.
References
Achtenhagen, L., & Welter, F. (2011). Surfing on the ironing board—
The representation of women’s entrepreneurship in German newspapers.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(9–10), 763–786.
Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism
and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization,
19(5), 543–562.
Al-Dajani, H., Bika, Z., Collins, L., & Swail, J. (2014). Gender and family
business: New theoretical directions. International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, 6(3), 218–230.
Alexander, A. (1987). Governors’ ladies: The wives and mistresses of Van Diemen’s
land governors. Tasmania, Australia: Sandy Bay.
Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013). Qualitative media analysis. London:
Sage.
270 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
Anderson, A. R., & Warren, L. (2011). The entrepreneur as hero and jester:
Enacting the entrepreneurial discourse. International Small Business Journal,
29(6), 589–609.
Ashton-Hodgeson, K. (2005). Committed couples in business: A delightful
dance between work and home. In T. Sayers & N. Monin (Eds.), The global
garage: Home based business in New Zealand. Thomson-Dunmore Press:
Australia.
Baker, D. (1998). Wealthy Wives Tales. ABAJ .https://heinonline.org/HOL/
LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/abaj84&div=144&id=&page=.
Basu, A. (2004). Entrepreneurial aspirations among family business owners:
An analysis of ethnic business owners in the UK. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 10(1/2), 12–33.
Bensemann, J., & Hall, C. M. (2010). Copreneurship in rural tourism: Exploring
women’s experiences. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,
2(3), 228–244.
Bowman, D. (2009). The deal: Wives, entrepreneurial business and family life.
Journal of Family Studies, 15(2), 167–176.
Bullen, J. (2014). Framing the wag. In: Media representations of footballers’ wives.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cammett, M. (2005). Fat cats and self-made men: Globalization and the
paradoxes of collective action. Comparative Politics, 37 (4), 379–400.
Chasserio, S., Lebegue, T., & Poroli, C. (2014). Heterogeneity of spousal
support for French women entrepreneurs. In K. Lewis, C. Henry, E. J. Gate-
wood, & J. Watson (Eds.), Women’s entrepreneurship in the 21st century. An
international multi-level research analysis (Chapter 11). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Chell, E. (2008). The entrepreneurial personality: A social construction. London:
Routledge.
Cosson, B. (2017). Crafting a family business: Wives weaving the threads
of work and family life. Unpublished PhD thesis, Swinburne Univer-
sity. https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/f181f1b9-b8a0-41eb-81e7-
20668c0810d5/1/Barbara%20Cosson%20Thesis%20pdfa.pdf.
D’Andria, A., & Gabarret, I. (2017). Entrepreneurship and high heels, in building
21st century entrepreneurship. John Wiley & Sons.
De Bruin, A., & Lewis, K. (1994). Hidden dimensions of women’s business:
Copreneurship and career constructs. Work.
De Bruin, A., & Lewis, K. (2004). Toward enriching united career theory:
Familial entrepreneurship and Copreneurship. Career Development Interna-
tional, 9(7), 638–646.
Deacon, J. H., Harris, J. A., & Worth, L. (2014). Who leads?: Fresh insights into
roles and responsibilities in a heterosexual copreneurial business. International
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6(3), 317–335.
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 271
De Vries, M. F. R. (2009). Sex, money, happiness and death: The quest for
authenticity. Insead Business Press.
Down, S. (2007). Narratives of enterprise: Crafting entrepreneurial self-identity
in a small-firm. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Eikhoff, D. R., Summers, J., & Carter, S. (2013). Women doing their own thing:
Media representations of female entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 19(5), 547–564.
Goffee, R., & Scase, R. (2015). Women in Charge: The experiences of women
entrepreneurs. London: Routledge.
Guthey, E., Clark, T., & Jackson, B. (2009). Demystifying Business Celebrity.
London: Routledge.
Hamilton, E. (2006). Whose story is it anyway? Narrative accounts of the role
of women in founding and establishing family businesses. International Small
Business Journal, 24(3).
Hamilton, E. (2013). The discourse of entrepreneurial masculinities (and femi-
ninities). Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: an International Journal,
25(1–2), 90–99.
Heikkinen, S. S. (2014). How do male managers narrate their female spouse’s
role in their career? Gender in Management: An International Journal, 29 (1),
25–43.
Hirshberg, M. C. (2010). Why so many entrepreneurs get divorced: Why the start
of a company so often spells the end of a marriage.www.inc.com/magazine/
20101101/why-so-many-entrepreneurs-get-divorced.html.
Hirshberg, M. C. (2012). For better or for work: A survival guide for
entrepreneurs and their families. An Inc Original.
Hymowitz, C. (2012). Behind every great woman—Bloomberg Businessweek
Magazine—sbcf-famlaw.com https://www.sbcf-famlaw.com/wp-content/upl
oads/2012/03/behind-every-great1.pdf.
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional
media and the internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among
blog users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622–642.
Kozinets, R. V. (2009). Doing ethnographic research online. London: Sage.
Kozinets, R.V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London:
Sage.
Langer, R., & Beckman, S. C. (2005). Sensitive research topics: Netnography
revisited. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(2), 189–
203.
Lewis, K., & Massey, C. (2011). Critical yet invisible: The “good wife” in the
New Zealand small firm. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneur-
ship, 3(2), 105–122.
272 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
Littler, J. (2007). Celebrity CEOs and the cultural economy of tabloid intimacy.
In S. Redmond & S. Holmes (Eds.), 2007—Stardom and celebrity: A reader.
London: Sage.
Litz, R. A. (2011). Double roles, double binds? double bind theory and family
business research. In A. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.), Understanding
family businesses. international studies in entrepreneurship, 15.NewYork,NY:
Springer.
Lyer, R. (2009). Entrepreneurial identities and the problematic of subjectivity in
media-mediated discourses. Discourse & society, 20(2).
Marshack, K. J. (1994). Love and work: How co-preneurial couples manage the
boundaries and transitions in personal relationship and business partnership.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of the Fielding Institute.
Martin, C., & Guarnieri, F. (2014). The role of the entrepreneurs’ wives in
the management of occupational risk: A monographic study of the limits of
delegation. Small Enterprise Research, 21(2), 202–213.
Martin, L., Jerrard, B., & Wright, L. (2019). Identity work in female led creative
businesses. Gender, Work & Organization,.https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.
12357.
Mavin, S., & Grandy, G. (2012). Doing gender well and differently in manage-
ment. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27 (4), 218–231.
Moult, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2005). Enterprising women: Gender and maturity
in new venture creation and development. Journal of Enterprising Culture,
13(3), 255–271.
Muda, M., Musa, R., Naina, R., & Borhan, H. (2014). Entrepreneur endorse-
ment and advertising effectiveness. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,
130, 11–20.
Mulholland, K. (1996). Gender power and property relations within
entrepreneurial wealthy families. Gender, Work & Organization, 3(2), 78–102.
Mulholland, K. (1997). The family enterprise: Business strategies. Work, Employ-
ment and Society, 11(4), 685–711.
Mulholland, K. (2003a). The entrepreneur’s wife and family life: ‘It’s like being
a one-parent family’. In K. Mulholland (Eds.), Class, gender and the family
business (pp. 111–130). Wiley.
Mulholland, K. (2003b). Gender and the management of family wealth Accumu-
lation: ‘He also wants pudding. In K. Mulholland (Eds.), Class, gender and
the family business (pp. 48–69). Wiley.
Nicholson, L., & Anderson, A. R. (2005). News and nuances of the
entrepreneurial metaphor: Linguistic games in entrepreneurial sense-making
and sense-giving. Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice, 29(2), 153–172.
Nikina, A., Shelton, L. M., & LeLoarne, S. (2015). An examination
of how husbands, as key stakeholders, impact the success of women
14 REVIEWING REPRESENTATIONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS … 273
entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(1),
38–62.
Nye, A. (1988). Feminist theories and the philosophies of man. London: Routledge.
Ochberg, R. L. (1987). The male career mode and the ideology of role. In H.
Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men’s studies. London: Allen
and Unwin.
Poza, E. J., & Messer, T. (2001). Spousal leadership and continuity in the family
firm. Family Business Review, 14(1).
Radu, M., & Redien-Collot, R. (2008). The social representation of
entrepreneurs in the French press: Desirable and feasible models? Interna-
tional Small Business Journal, 26(3), 259–298.
Russell, P. (2005). Wife stories: Narrating marriage and self in the life of Jane
Franklin. Victorian Studies, 48(1), 35–57.
Siegal, D. (2004). The new trophy wife. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/
articles/200401/the-new-trophy-wife.
Smith, R. (2009). The diva cycle as an alternative social construction of female
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Gender, 1(2),
148–163.
Smith, R. (2014). Assessing the contribution of the ‘Theory of Matriarchy’ to
the entrepreneurship and family business literatures. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Gender, 6 (3), 255–275.
Smith, R. (2017). Reading liminal and temporal dimensionality in the Baxter
family ‘public-narrative’. International Small Business Journal, 36 (1).
Smith, R. (2018). The ‘Dowager’ and her role in the governance, and leadership
of the entrepreneurial family business. In V. Ratten, V. Ramadani, L.-P. Dana,
R. Hisrich, & J. Ferreira (Eds.), Gender and family entrepreneurship. London:
Routledge.
Smith, R., & Neergaard, H. (2015). Telling business stories as fellowship-tales.
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship., 7 (2), 232–252.
Smith, R., & Warren, L. (2018, November). The role of the ‘significant other’
in the gendered social construction of entrepreneurial identity and narrative.
ISBE.
Stanley, T. J. (2000). The Millionaire Mind. Bantum Press.
Stirzaker, R., & Sitko, R. (2018). The older entrepreneurial self: inter-
secting identities of older women entrepreneurs. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-
2017-0497.
The Alison Rose Review of Female Entrepreneurship. (2019). https://ass
ets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/784324/RoseReview_Digital_FINAL.PDF.
Veblen, T. (2005). Conspicuous consumption. London: Penguin.
274 R. SMITH AND L. WARREN
Vera, H., Berardo, F. M., & Berardo, D. H. (1987). On Gold Diggers: Status
gain or loss in age—Heterogamous marriages. Journal of Aging Studies, 1(1),
51–64.
Weidhaas, A. D. (2018). Female business owners hiding in plain sight. Interna-
tional Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 2–18.
Williams, D. K. (2012, August 19). The entrepreneurial spouse: The vital role
of the significant other. Forbes.https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkwil
liams/2012/08/19/the-entrepreneurial-spouse-the-vital-role-of-the-signif
icant-other/#4860aec630e6.
CHAPTER 15
Strategies to Build Women Leaders Globally:
Think Managers, Think Men; Think Leaders,
Think Women
M. S. Rao
Introduction
You may encounter many defeats, but you must not be defeated. In fact,
it may be necessary to encounter the defeats, so you can know who you
are, what you can rise from, how you can still come out of it.
—Maya Angelou
When we think about managers we think about men. However, when
we think about leaders do we think about women? We must think about
women because women are better leaders than men in several aspects.
Most men talk about women empowerment and equality of women but in
reality, a few of them walk their talk and advocate gender equality globally.
Although leadership is not gendered specific, we find only a few
women leaders globally due to cultural, religious, social, and other factors
M. S. Rao (B)
MSR Leadership Consultants, New Delhi, India
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Marques (ed.), Exploring Gender at Work,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-64319-5_15
275
276 M. S. RAO
including the glass ceiling. The good news is that currently women are
smashing through the glass ceiling and excelling globally to carve a
niche for themselves. Despite several constraints, women are proving their
credentials and capabilities on par with men. They are not behind in any
way when compared with male leaders.
Research shows that women take failures to their hearts and take a
little longer time to move on from their failures. They are hard on them-
selves and love to be perfectionists. They fail to claim their achievements
and make noise publicly especially on social media because of gender
and cultural aspects. Additionally, they fail to leverage their networks and
groups thus hindering their career prospects. Women fail to network for
fear of being misunderstood by others. Women often ruminate about their
failures more than men. They are harder on themselves than men. They
are better at multitasking than men.
Research further shows that compared to men, women are better at
interpersonal skills, soft skills, emotional intelligence, empathy, flexibility,
and sociability. In a 2017 survey, Deloitte found that organizations with
diverse and inclusive cultures tend to be six times more innovative, six
times more agile in anticipating and responding to change, and twice as
likely to meet or exceed financial targets. Organizations truly committed
to gender diversity look at if not as a means of virtue signaling, but some-
thing as important as any business issue. It is observed that women get
senior positions when companies are in a downturn and riddled with chal-
lenges. Women can troubleshoot effectively and can lead during crisis
effectively. A series of experimental studies showed that a female candi-
date is more likely to be appointed to a leadership position when the
po