Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Gender Issues
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-024-09323-x
1 3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Gendered Constructions ofLuck atWork: The Case ofCareer
Narratives ofFemale andMale Managers
MahanPoorhosseinzadeh1 · MustafaF.Özbilgin2 · GlendaStrachan3
Accepted: 18 January 2024 / Published online: 5 March 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
There is a ubiquitous assumption that luck is a gender-neutral and equally
distributed phenomenon. Drawing on 50 interviews with female and male managers,
we examine their constructions of luck at work and demonstrate the gendered
construction of luck in career narratives. Despite the dearth of attention to luck
in the career literature, luck often features in the career narratives of professional
workers. In line with the literature, we define the construct of luck as something
outside the locus of control of individuals. Yet, we identify that luck is a gendered
construct in career narratives. We demonstrate that while female managers define
luck as receiving equality of opportunity in the process of their careers, male
managers define luck as structures of support that offer them opportunities above
and beyond their merit at work, which is a privilege that men appear to enjoy.
The perception and interpretation of luck have far-reaching effects on addressing
and comprehending gender disparities in career advancement, decision-making,
negotiation and organisational leadership. Recognising the gender-specific impact
of luck is vital in promoting gender equality and offering equitable chances for the
career progression of women and non-privileged employees. It offers a persuasive
option to challenge the dominant meritocratic assumptions on equality of chances,
structures and the distribution of resources.
Keywords Gender· Luck· Career narratives· Female· Discourse analysis·
Australia
Introduction
Many individuals turn to belief in luck when they experience hardship. Luck
provides hope and energy at work and in life, and a belief in luck provides a good
source of motivation and performance at work (Hannabuss, 2008; Luthans etal.,
2004; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Thus, luck is an important yet underexplored
construct for organisational behaviour. The ubiquitous nature of luck in everyday
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 2 of 18
experiences leads to the assumption that luck is gender-neutral and that women
and men have the same definition of luck at work. The extant literature explored
luck as a gendered social attribution, we extend this literature and fill the gap on the
gendered construction of luck by exploring luck as a gendered personal construct. In
this study, we scrutinise the construction of luck through female and male managers’
career narratives and investigate the ways in which interviewees use the term ‘luck’
in their career accounts. Studies of luck from a social psychological perspective
frame luck as a phenomenon outside an individual’s locus of control (Bright etal.,
2005, 2009; Sagone & De Caroli, 2014). This framing of luck is not studied along
gender lines in career narratives. Our abductive study on gender and careers reveals
that women and men have different narratives of luck in their career accounts. We
note that the use of luck and its role in individual accounts remains an understudied
phenomenon. Therefore, this study contributes to an understanding of how luck is
used discursively in women’s and men’s career narratives, what their references
to luck can tell us about their career progression, and how they make sense of
attributions of luck. Finally, following Anderson’s framing of luck, we question the
interplay of gender and luck in career narratives. Consequently, this study sheds
light on the societal and cultural construction of luck and its hidden gendered
manifestations, revealing hegemonic masculinity in the construction of luck.
Literature Review
Luck is a multifaceted concept defined as an individual and an institutional
phenomenon. At the individual level, luck is defined as occurrences outside the
locus of control of individuals. For institutions, luck is defined as events outside their
control (Barney, 1986). Anderson (1999) defines Luck Egalitarianism or Equality
of Fortune as the natural inequality in the distribution of luck. However, Anderson
argues that this definition fails the most fundamental test that any egalitarian
theory must meet, and this is the principle of equal respect or concern for all
citizens, because of the exclusion of some citizens to enjoy equal social conditions
on spurious grounds that it is their fault that they lose those opportunities. Luck
egalitarianism relies on two moral premises: that people should be compensated for
undeserved misfortunes and that the compensation should come only from that part
of others’ good fortune that is undeserved (Anderson, 1999). In this way, Anderson
makes a distinction between earned and unearned luck. Based on the principles of
egalitarian luck, luck brings distributive justice.
From the luck egalitarians’ view, there are variants of luck. Dworkin (2018)
distinguished between option and brute luck. Option luck “is a matter of how
deliberate and calculated gambles turn out—whether someone gains or loses
through accepting an isolated risk he or she should have anticipated and might
have declined”. Brute luck is “a matter of how risks fall out that are not in that
sense deliberate gambles” (Dworkin, 1981, p.73). Dworkin (2018) elaborated
further that the winner of that gamble enjoys ‘good option luck’, and the loser
suffers from ‘bad option luck’. “Gamble” is a metaphorical term used to describe
the role of luck in determining the outcomes of people’s careers. According to
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6 Page 3 of 18 6
Dworkin, there is a distinction between “good option luck”, which benefits
the winner and “bad option luck”, which harms the loser. This aligns with the
border conversation about luck and how it impacts individuals’ career transitions.
Lippert‐Rasmussen (2001) claims that differential option luck does not capture
equality and egalitarianism. According to Lippert-Rasmussen (2019), luck is a
mixture of option luck and brute luck, and it depends on “the extent to which one
could influence the expected value of the outcome of one’s choice”.
According to Boyer-Kassem and Duchêne (2019, p.13), “a widespread
egalitarian theory is resourcist and stresses that justice requires equalising
everyone’s resources (rights, liberties, primary goods and but also wealth and
opportunities)”. Such luck egalitarian theories argue that what people do with
these resources is their own “responsibility” and desert luck (Boyer-Kassem &
Duchêne, 2019; Lippert-Rasmussen, 2019). However, a core distinction should be
made between what results from bad luck and what results from an agent’s choice
(Dworkin, 2018). Depending on the specific distributive principle endorsed,
this can yield theories such as luck egalitarianism or luck prioritarianism
(Boyer-Kassem & Duchêne, 2019). For instance, luck egalitarianism (Lippert-
Rasmussen, 2015b) considers that inequalities only occur when they arise from
choices (option luck). Luck egalitarians generally argue that resources (such as
career opportunities, education, social responsibilities) should be distributed
equally at first but that inequalities may legitimately arise through people’s
choices (Boyer-Kassem & Duchêne, 2019).
The view that everything is a matter of responsibility and desert luck obviously
flies in the face of our everyday ascriptions of responsibility (Lippert-Rasmussen,
2015a). Therefore, what makes an agent deserving or responsible needs to be
scrutinised. Some define it on the basis of the desert to be the value of one’s
contribution, while others hold the desert basis to be one’s level of effort (Kagan
cited in Lippert-Rasmussen, 2015a). “People who think that justice should
neutralise the luck specified by (2) can disagree over these accounts” (Lippert-
Rasmussen, 2015a, p. 58).
Tessman (2009) stated, “luck that is generated by systemic forces such as social,
political, and economic has an impact on a certain group of people,” and therefore, it
is called systemic luck (p.17). Yet this definition lacks the feature of unpredictability,
characterising it as nonsystemic luck. Similarly, bad luck that has no systemic source
tends to be predictable (Tessman, 2009, p.17). Similarly, Kim (2010) discusses
how luck and gender interact within social structures. The author argues that the
impact of luck is not evenly distributed across genders due to societal norms and
expectations, which create a gendered social structure. Kim (2010) suggests that
women are more vulnerable to the negative effects of luck due to their disadvantaged
position within this structure. The author highlights the importance of understanding
the complex interaction between luck and gender in society.
Therefore, if we apply a gender lens to the luck concept, we find that luck
interplays with gender and careers as women and men enjoy different forms of
systemic advantages and disadvantages, earned and unearned privileges in their
career experiences. The differential nature of gendered experiences of careers shapes
the luck narratives of women and men in gendered ways.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 4 of 18
Gender andLuck inCareers
Career literature provides some insights into gendered expressions of luck across
different groups. Classical work by Deaux and Emswiller (1974) and Swim and
Sanna (1996) reveals that while men’s success is attributed to skill, women’s success
is attributed to luck. White etal. (1992) found that when most women talk about
career progression, they use expressions such as “being lucky” or “being fortunate”
to get the opportunity. This is similar to the definition of Bornat et al. (2011),
who explained that luck is “indicative of chance upon opportunity”. In the early
literature, luck features as a gendered construct that women’s high performance is
often perceived as luck while the same performance but men is attributed to skill
(Sieverding & Koch, 2009). More recently, men’s perceptions of luck have been
studied. For example, Bertrand and Mullainathan (2001) explore whether CEOs are
rewarded for their luck rather than their performance. Hafer and Gresham (2008) and
Jasko etal. (2020) suggest that men in the STEM field are more likely to attribute
their success to their technical skills and knowledge, while women attribute their
success to luck. Their findings lend support to the male constructions of luck as a
privilege. In the extant literature, luck is framed as a socially attributed phenomenon,
there is a gap in terms of studying luck as a gendered personal construct, i.e., how
individuals view their personal luck in gendered ways. We address this gap.
Sauder (2020) suggests that luck could provide an excellent lens through which to
study social science constructs. Yet, when luck is studied as a career discourse, there
are only a few studies that have discussed the gender dimension of luck as a career
discourse. For example, Davidson and Cooper (1992) argue that people tend to
attribute career success to luck rather than their own skill and ability. However, they
do not refer to the gendered construction of the concept. Similarly, Mitchell etal.
(1999) and Krumboltz etal. (2013) believe that individuals should seek to utilise
chance in their career development, and they called this phenomenon ‘planned
happenstance theory’. They state that there is a difference between “someone who
passively relies on luck to solve problems and someone who is actively searching
while remaining open to new and unexpected opportunities” (p. 117). They believe
that luck is more likely to result from effective actions (Mitchell et al., 1999).
Scholars (Bright et al., 2005, 2009; Hirschi, 2010; Kindsiko & Baruch, 2019)
believe that some people are better than others at capitalising upon chance events
which might lead a person to attribute their successes to luck rather than their own
ability. They have interpreted luck as a consequence of chance event. In a study on
sex differences as an explanation for career progression, some other researchers
(McMahon etal., 2012; Wood & Lindorff, 2001) found that most female managers
reported enthusiasm, having mentors and luck as contributing to their success.
Although women and men had similar aspirations to achieve senior positions,
women were less likely to expect promotions, explaining that such differences are
the result of societal expectations of gender differences. Similarly, a study by Fisman
and O’Neill (2009) finds that women are more likely to attribute their success to
luck and opportunity rather than solely to their own abilities. The authors argue that
these beliefs have implications for women’s career choices and aspirations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6 Page 5 of 18 6
Davies and Pham (2023) argue that the gendered dynamics of luck can create
non-equitable opportunities for career advancement for men and women academics
and researchers. Luck is intimately connected to gender identities, and understanding
the interplay between the two can provide insights into the experience of researchers
(Davies & Pham, 2023). They conclude that the gendered identities intersect with
luck in complex ways, with women and non-binary researchers often experiencing
additional barriers and constraints.
Gill and Prowse (2014) examine gender differences in competitive behaviour
in career decisions. The authors find that men are more likely to enter competitive
environments, while women tend to avoid them. They explain further that luck plays
a significant role in determining the outcome of competitions, and this effect is more
pronounced for women than men. The authors suggest that interventions aimed at
increasing the participation of women in competitive environments should consider
the role of luck and aim to reduce its impact on outcomes. In summary, this study
provides fresh insights into the reasons behind women’s potential reluctance to seek
career advancement that is heavily focused on competition.
Other researchers, such as Zhong etal. (2011) and Nzioka (2013), believe that
luck has a minor role in career progression. Cimirotić etal. (2017) identified luck as
an important factor in career advancement, however, they believe the impact of luck
on career progression can be interpreted differently when considering the gender
of the individual. According to Cimirotić etal. (2017), women are modest about
their career achievements and, therefore, consider luck an expression of modesty.
Consequently, they conclude that “highly modest self-presenters were favoured over
moderate modest self-presenters when they were female, whereas the opposite holds
true for men” (Cimirotić etal., 2017, p.180). In some other studies, women attribute
their career success to luck when they were able to overcome gender barriers
(Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2001; Cho etal., 2019) and “lucky ones” who achieve
their career aspirations are those who have been successful in avoiding gender biases
(Soklaridis etal., 2017).
Similarly, Diezmann et al. (2019) argue that to a limited extent having luck
positively impacted women professors’ careers. Professors acknowledged that
primarily, hard work and a bit of luck provided opportunities for them to advance
their careers, such as being in the right place at the right time or receiving
mentorship from influential colleagues.
On the other hand, luck can also have negative effects on women’s careers,
particularly due to gender bias and discrimination. The authors emphasise the need
for a more equitable system that recognises, and rewards merit rather than relying on
chance occurrences. Overall, the paper highlights the importance of understanding
the interplay between luck and gender in academic career progression (Diezmann
etal., 2019).
What we contribute to this discussion of luck in career literature is a comparative
view on women’s and men’s career narratives of luck, with a particular focus on
gender differences that emanate from structural conditions and choices that
give luck a gendered meaning. One of the main theoretical perspectives that is
proposed to explain this phenomenon is Anderson’s (1999) Luck Egalitarianism
or Equality of Fortune, which accounts for the natural inequality in the distribution
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 6 of 18
of luck. Therefore, in this study, we take a broader perspective by a tour of Luck
Egalitarianism theories to guide our discussions of women’s and men’s career
narratives of luck.
Methodology
In order to build a framework that helps unravel the gendered construction of luck,
this paper draws on a social constructionist approach (Burr, 1995) to luck. Therefore,
it focuses on luck as a product of social interaction, as a form of saying and doing
(Martin, 2003), based on implicit and explicit cultural norms and rules (Benschop
etal., 2013). Our social constructionist approach relates to a Foucauldian analysis of
luck as multiple discourses that refer to a dynamic set of meanings, representations,
and practices that produce, reproduce, challenge and adjust a particular event. In that
sense, discourses define the objects of our knowledge and actions (Foucault, 2019).
The gendered construction of luck can be surrounded by a number of discourses.
Some of these discourses are more dominant or prevalent than others (Martin, 2003).
Therefore, in our study, we analyse the dynamic set of multiple discourses regarding
luck and their respective impact on the gendered construction of this concept.
This study draws on 50 semi-structured interviews with female and male senior
managers in Australia. In this study, we have focused on senior managers’ narratives
in order to analyse their career transition to senior roles in which the attribution
to luck has been made. Exploring luck in career stories requires a substantial and
successful career history. Individuals in managerial positions, therefore, present
a robust sample for study. As our study was abductive, we started with the data,
identified luck as a curious construct, and then moved between theory and data to
arrive at a conceptual saturation. Therefore, our findings are based on an empirical
study in which female and male managers constructed different meanings of luck
and linked the gendered attributions to this concept. The study was not originally
conceived for the purpose of exploring the construction of luck in a career, and
it was part of a larger project examining women’s underrepresentation in senior
roles. The study is based on an abductive paradigm (Hubbard & Lindsay, 2013;
Williamson, 2016) rather than an inductive or deductive paradigm, as the abductive
process of moving between the data and the theory has led to the discovery of an
emergent phenomenon, i.e. gendered construction of luck.
Therefore, we decided to draw on the findings about gendered constructions
of luck, in addition to the reflexive diary of the researchers, to explore further the
ways in which respondents use the concept of luck or similar terms in their career
life. Watson (2001) makes a distinction between an “analytic concept”, a concept
imposed by the researcher to explain an aspect of social reality, a term used by
respondents in describing their lifeworld (El-Sawad etal., 2005). Whilst our interest
is in the latter, it is nonetheless worth bearing in mind the ways in which concepts
like luck have been used analytically.
In our analysis, we paid attention to how relationships between career progression
and the word luck as discursive formations were formed through discursive
practices, such as how women attribute their success as luck or accidental and men
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6 Page 7 of 18 6
to their own merits and capabilities. In career progression, men interviewees pointed
towards their male privilege and the support that they receive from their managers
as a matter of luck for career progression, however, women attributed their career
progression to fortune.
Therefore, in this study, we use discourse analysis as frequently employed in
organisation studies (Fairclough, 2005, 2013) for analysing “the relations between
linguistic/semiotic facets of social structures and social practices, including
‘discourses’” (Fairclough, 2005, p.917). This helped us to approach discourses of
luck as part of a broader set of social and discursive practices that challenge male
privilege.
Therefore, this paper addresses the following questions: 1) What does the concept
of luck mean for women and men? And how do female and male managers narrate
luck in their careers? How have the societal and cultural factors influenced the
differing perceptions of luck between males and females?
Findings
We used discursive analytical techniques to analyse all quotes concerning the word
luck. In this study, men talked about how they had the capacity and the attributes
to progress, whereas many women spoke about being “lucky” to get a position. No
man commented that it was “luck” or “by accident” that they had progressed. When
men commented on luck, it was often in relation to support and sponsorship that
they received above and beyond their capabilities.
Women used phrases such as not planned, accidental, and from nowhere as
managing careers in senior positions was a particular challenge for most of them,
and luck was, therefore, their fortune in overcoming these barriers. Their narratives
involved making “choices” at the outset of their career, navigating their way through
the high demands of senior jobs, and as a result, making strategic “choices” about
further career progression. For women balancing career and family responsibilities
was a consideration when planning for their careers (Özkanlı & White, 2008)
Women’s “choices” occur in circumstances not of their “choosing” (Lewis &
Simpson, 2010, 2015), and the choices faced are limited and come with potentially
negative consequences. In contrast, the majority of men do not face these “choices”.
Kossek et al. (2017) believed that women’s individual “choices” are shaped by
the societal contexts in which they are embedded. In contrast, many of the male
participants were unencumbered by much of the caring responsibilities, domestic
chores, and gender barriers (Poorhosseinzadeh & Strachan, 2020; Poorhosseinzadeh
etal., 2019). Their career narratives were less about barriers and more about self-
choices, network support and sponsorship that they received from other men. Men
framed luck as events, incidents, and happenings that offered them more than what
they were capable of in terms of their education, experience and skills.
According to Niederle and Vesterlund (2007), women not only turn away from
competition, while men are attracted to it, but also high-performing women entered
their competitive tournament scheme too rarely and low-performing men entered it
too often. Women often undervalued their own skills and were described as not as
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 8 of 18
good at self-promotion as men. Men often referred to their capabilities and that they
didn’t need luck.
Luck asAccidental Career
Almost all of the women managers interviewed reported having accidental
management careers because they stated that they generally had not planned—and
were not encouraged—to be managers. Women described their career paths as
unplanned and accidental, while in comparison, none of the men described their
careers as accidental. Most women expressed that they do not have career goals.
They often referred to being lucky in gaining senior positions and not believing in
their capabilities. One of the participants, Sophia, explained how she considers her
career progress in relation to luck.
My career has been not planned; I have always been happy in the current role.
I have never had much ambition to move forward… I’ve seemed to be in the
right place at the right time, and obviously, I have applied for the role and I
have been lucky to get it. But it was never a career path that I was taking.
Natalie also mentioned that her career was not planned, and that she was lucky:
My first senior position was out of nowhere. I didn’t think that I could do the
job and I didn’t want to do that job, but the way that it was put to me after I
said no initially, … I realised that it would be better for me to do it even if I
did it wrong…. I have been very lucky along the way… Then, I kept sort of
leaping up to the next one and [the] next one and [the] next one, so there was
no intent to part of my path.
Although one of the women referred to having a specific career goal, she still
believes her achievement has been as a result of being fortunate, which is again a
variation of “luck”. Rita said, “I’ve been quite fortunate actually. I’ve kind of always
set high achievements for myself and I have actually always reached and gotten
there”. Overall, luck featured quite heavily in women’s framing of their careers. They
attributed the career outcomes to luck rather than their own choices and chances.
Luck asCareer Success
Unlike women, men never talk about an accidental career path. Some of them
referred to luck, but luck for them was building the relationship that is required for
achieving higher positions. For example, male managers mentioned that they were
strategic when planning for career progression. As one of their strategies, they
discussed their planning with their senior managers, and with their guidance and
support, they were able to achieve a senior position. Jack (DVC) explained:
I think I have always been fortunate [in my career progression]. I’ve had the
opportunities from good previous experiences in diverse settings. I think I’ve
had good role models and mentors to follow. I’ve had good feedback that has
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6 Page 9 of 18 6
been very important … and supervisors that have been effective in giving me
feedback and helping me respond to feedback … sometimes they’ve been
through opportunities created through networking …. I moved from Singapore
back to England to a job with someone who hired me from the networking
opportunities …. He became a strong mentor to me, he helped me progress
to different levels of seniority within my organisation and I think he was very
helpful in both mentoring me and creating the opportunity for me to flourish.
And giving me a job in the first place and supporting me in my ongoing
development.
Most male managers stated that they prepared to express their interest in
progression to their managers or supervisors and asked for their advice on further
progression. Tony (CFO) reflected:
I am always actively seeking feedback from them [my managers] to make
sure that I’m aligned with them…. You should know what your boss thinks
and expects all the time. So, part of it [career progression] is about not being
ignorant to that relationship. You need to manage your boss, as well as manage
yourself.
Tony (CFO) mentioned that he was lucky to be given opportunity and exposure to
big projects, and consequently opportunity for advancement. Luck for most men in
the study was something that came in addition and in support of their career plans.
Men were able to plan careers and luck was helping them along.
I was offered an opportunity to play a senior role. I [had] never managed that
before, but I was lucky that I had the senior’s complete support. It worked out
quite well, and they offered me the role …. So, from that, they gave me quick
exposure to executives and that was quite a quick transition.
In a similar way, men also talked about being lucky to be given big projects to
work on which, once again, if they believed they performed well, they would more
likely be offered a Joshua observed:
My [previous] manager [was the one] exposed me to different things… He
involved me in projects and activities that helped me to develop certain skills…
and by doing that I learnt how to plan, how to influence … I think I was really
fortunate that I was given that exposure during my career progression. Even
here, I’m exposed to things, and I’m empowered to be exposed to things,
which I think is a really big thing.
This was, however, not always the case for the women managers. Women were
not usually empowered or given the opportunity that leads to advancement in the
same organisation. However, when women received the opportunity to take on a
temporary role it did not seem to assist them with further career progression. Alison
had performed in a senior role (Tier 2) several times but was never promoted to
a higher role on a permanent basis. Instead of promoting her to fill the positions,
the organisation recruited another general manager. Her narratives involved making
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 10 of 18
“strategic choices” at the outset of her career, however, this has not been translated
into career success.
On the other hand, there have been some exceptions that women had a similar
narrative when referring to the “luck” and “sponsorship”. For example, Diana
(senior manager) mentioned that:
I am lucky and that I have a very supportive boss so my direct manager
within our organization I feel that I am supported and given the right amount
of responsibilities and ability to make decisions myself that I know that you
support.
Women also mentioned that having family support to take care of their children is
a “luck”. Barbara (GM) explained:
I am very fortunate in that I have got a supportive family…my parents in law,
cause I’ve got a seven year old son they have allowed me to go back full time
when my son was still relatively young which has made a huge difference. It is
really hard for a woman to go at the same pace as a man if you don’t have the
same level of support that I do. Women in my opinion will always be the main,
have more of a care factor about what was in the lunch box the weather of the
reading gets done or not and not in every case but that’s certainly the case in
my situation and I am just so lucky that my parents in law are retired school
teachers I know that the homework get started.
The findings showed an intersectional exception to the gendered construction
of luck. William (SM) is from a minority ethnic group, despite his hard work he
stayed in a senior management role (Tier 3) for a long time. He is single and totally
dedicated to his work. He framed luck as having good access to mentoring, unlike
other more privileged men who framed luck about having something more than their
merits would afford them. William reflected:
I was lucky to get very good mentors, who were pretty much high up in the
industry, within the company…they coached me from the skills point of view,
but at the same time, from a leadership point of view, that was beneficial to
me.
Discussion andConclusion
We know from the literature that women’s and men’s experiences and measures
of success are different (Ng et al., 2005) and that men report luck more than
women (Ottsen, 2019). Women suffer more complex barriers at work (Cho etal.,
2017; Wei & Cho, 2013). Men support each other more at work (Spurk et al.,
2015). The literature on gender and work has revealed many other aspects of the
gendering of women’s and men’s experiences and personal constructs (Bourne &
Özbilgin, 2008). Our study extends this literature by exploring luck as a gendered
personal construct. Gendered constructions of luck at the individual level reveal
how systemic inequalities in opportunity structures lead to women and men having
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6 Page 11 of 18 6
different perceptions and constructions of luck. Therefore, exploring luck reveals
mechanisms, cultural constructs, and rituals that shape opportunity structures in
work life and labour markets.
In this study, we have expanded the discussion on the treatment of luck
in philosophy, which is twofold: Luck egalitarianism emphasises equality of
opportunity. Democratic egalitarianism refers to individuals’ chances and choices
beyond their opportunities as luck (Anderson, 1999). Drawing on Anderson’s Luck
Egalitarianism and democratic egalitarianism (1999), we extend both theories
of egalitarianism that are often studied in gender-neutral ways by showing their
gendered construction. Our study demonstrates that while women draw on luck
egalitarianism which views equality of opportunity as luck, men draw on democratic
egalitarianism, which considers luck as something above and beyond their earned
privileges.
Our study shows that luck is a gendered construct and that women define their
luck in terms of their struggles against all odds, whereas the male definition of
luck is about structures and institutions that support them above and beyond. Our
study further hints at the intersectionality of gendered constructions of luck, as
luck appeared also ethnicised and classed. While Roulet and Laker (2022) suggest
that sponsorship could enhance luck, we show in this paper that such luck is often
afforded to men and remains a male construct. Women in our study, in the absence
of sponsorship, refer to luck that they have attained. Luck egalitarianism (Anderson,
1999) refers to luck egalitarianism versus democratic egalitarianism. In the former,
individuals frame their chances and choices as luck. When choices and chances that
individuals have are attributed to luck, inequalities inherent in gender relations and
other hierarchical relationships remain entrenched and unchallenged. Anderson
suggests instead that democratic egalitarianism as an alternative philosophy that is
founded on the assumption of the fundamental form of equality between individuals
that shapes social institutions, processes and outcomes. If luck egalitarianism is
upheld, men and women will continue to define luck in separate ways.
The ways in which women and men managers identified themselves as lucky in
their career advancement differed dramatically. The term luck and its associated
phrases were not gender-neutral, and there were visible disparities between women
and men in their usage of the term luck. Men declared their achievement of senior
positions was a result of their hard work and acceptance of responsibilities; they
had achieved their positions on their own merits. They considered this as deserved,
a concept of justice that has been called Desert Luck (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2015a,
2019). For them, being lucky meant having a supportive manager and having the
right relationships that offered them opportunities above and beyond their merit at
work. For men, achieving senior roles required something “beyond the original set”,
a structure of support they could enjoy because of their male privilege, and they
defined this as luck. Men’s construction of luck reflects Dworkin’s definition (2018)
of good option luck, which results in inequality of opportunity for women as they are
not offered similar options. As Melamed (cited in Özbilgin & Healy, 2004, p.360)
mentioned, the “macro-societal opportunity structures are more likely to assist men
than women”.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 12 of 18
In stark contrast to men’s narratives, the senior women in this study saw their
career success as accidental. However, in women’s cases, there should be an
alternative explanation of why desert luck is absent. Here we should consider the
absence of distributive justice as a potential reason because women do not receive
the same privilege as their male colleagues to demand more than their stake in life.
Therefore, we need to consider the interplay between luck and responsibility in
the career narratives of women and men from a more critical perspective (Lippert-
Rasmussen, 2019).
In this study, we have discussed how societal and political factors have influenced
the differing perceptions of luck between males and females. We explained that
men enjoy systemic luck as they have the required social and political sources, such
as relationships and sponsorships, necessary to achieve management positions.
According to Tessman (2009, p.17), bad luck with no systemic source tends to be
predictable. Therefore, women’s bad luck is predictable as they do not have the
required resources, i.e. access to support from men’s networks of privilege, for their
success. So that is the reason when women achieve senior roles, they consider it as
accidental because they do not predict achieving a higher position.
In summary, the study uncovers the power effects of discourses of luck which
have been constructed as a specific manifestation of hegemonic masculinity. By
looking at attributions of luck from a gender perspective, this study concludes that
this discourse has been affected by societal and cultural norms on gender. Thus we
infer that luck is a gendered construct in the context of careers.
We find notable exceptions across intersections of gender, class and race to
male and female frames of luck in career narratives. For example, men from
working-class or minority ethnic backgrounds and white women from upper-
class backgrounds do not have the same experience as most women and men in
the study. We also identified these exceptions to our findings and explored their
intersectional significance and the complexity of intersectional ways in which luck
is gendered, classed and ethnicised. Yet, our study is too modest to capture the full
range of intersectional effects. Thus we suggest further research on intersectional
constructions of luck in career narratives.
There are a number of limitations to this study. This is an abductive study. Further
studies of inductive and deductive nature could survey the interplay of luck, gender
and careers in more focused ways and with different populations. The overwhelming
majority of senior managers in Australia are white Anglo-Celtic men; consequently,
there was little diversity among participants in terms of ethnicity, class and other
categories (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2018).
Future research could focus on critical incidents that lead to gendered
constructions of luck and career. It would also be interesting to explore ethnicity,
sexual orientation, class, disability and luck in career narratives, as there is a dearth
of literature on diversity and luck in careers in general. In addition, the role of luck
in career decision-making has been discussed by researchers to have an impact on an
individual self-efficacy (Shin & Lee, 2017) People who perceive luck as an essential
factor in their career advancement are more likely to experience a negative on their
confidence in making career decisions (Shin & Lee, 2017). As we discussed in this
study, the construction of luck is gendered; therefore, it is crucial to investigate
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6 Page 13 of 18 6
further the role of luck in career development to understand better and reduce
gender disparities in career advancement. The practical implication for women
includes recognising and addressing the gendered nature of luck and its impact on
their career advancement. Individuals need to realise how men translate luck in their
careers and understand the impact of luck on their career decision-making and self-
efficacy to be prepared to navigate the gender-specific approaches in their career
transition. By doing so, women would be able to take control of their career paths
and increase the likelihood of career progression. Studies have shown that efforts to
enhance internal locus of control and career self-efficacy among students have been
identified as potential strategies to address the influence of luck on career aspirations
(Al-Bahrani etal., 2021).
On the other hand, HR professionals and organisations are responsible for
considering the differential effects of luck on men and women’s career prospects
and working toward creating equitable opportunities for career advancement. This
involves acknowledging and addressing any systemic biases within the organisation
and implementing policies and practices that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
Studying gendered constructions of luck reveals systemic inequalities and inequality
regimes that shape opportunity structures in gendered lines. Studying constructions
of luck.HR professionals may support female or non-privileged employees by
eliminating systems and contexts of gender inequality, providing women with
resources such as coaching and mentoring to help them navigate gender-specific
challenges and negotiate for fair compensation and career opportunities. By doing
so, HR professionals can help create a more inclusive and equitable workplace that
benefits everyone. Implementing the aforementioned practical recommendations
can optimally contribute to a fairer distribution of opportunities, creating a work
environment where success is determined by merit rather than chance/luck.
Appendix
See Table 1
Table 1 Details of interview participants (all names are pseudonyms in this research)
No Participant Gender Age Children Marital Status Position
1 Richard M 55 2 Partnered Deputy Director
2 Mike M 52 2 Partnered Head of Dept-Prof
3 Matt M 57 2 Partnered Dean-Prof
4 David M 53 4 Partnered Dean-Prof
5 Jordan M 41 1 Partnered Director
6 Jack M 59 3 Partnered DVC
7 Aiden M 40 2 Partnered Head of Dept-Prof
8 Jason M 57 2 Partnered Head of Dept-Prof
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 14 of 18
Table 1 (continued)
No Participant Gender Age Children Marital Status Position
9 Rudolf M 49 3 Partnered Dean-Prof
10 Luke M 47 2 Partnered Associate Director- Prof
11 Charles M 67 Not known Partnered Associate Director
12 Ryder M 45 Not known Partnered Deputy Head of Dept-Prof
13 Carolina F 35 1 Partnered Director
14 Lara F 38 1 Partnered A/Director
15 Maria F 53 0 Partnered Deputy Director- Prof
16 Clara F 47 1 Partnered Head of Dept- Prof
17 Grace F 51 3 Partnered Deputy Director
18 Natalie F 50 2 Single Director- Prof
19 Hannah F 58 2 Partnered DVC
20 Isabella F 65 3 Partnered PVC
21 Zoe F 47 3 Single PVC
22 Fiona F 44 2 Partnered Head- Prof
23 Elena F 50 1 Partnered Deputy Head of Dept-Prof
24 Violet F 44 0 Partnered Deputy Head of Dept-Prof
25 Jasmine F 40 1 Partnered HR Manager
26 Lucy F 44 0 Single Deputy Head of Dept-Prof
27 Alison F 48 2 Single Senior Manager
28 Rita F 33 0 Single Senior Manager
29 Anna F 31 1 Partnered Manager
30 Rose F 38 0 Single Senior Manager
31 Kevin M 35 2 Partnered General Manager
32 Sophia F 49 2 Single Manager
33 Erika F 47 2 Single parent Manager
34 Flora F 43 1 Partnered Senior Manager
35 Daniel M 47 2 Partnered General Manager
36 Barbara F 43 0 Partnered General Manager
37 Ross M 41 2 Partnered General Manager
38 Matthew M 54 2 Partnered General Manager
39 Diana F 35 0 Single Senior Manager
40 Bradley M 58 1 Partnered General Manager
41 Rita F 38 2 Partnered Senior manager
42 Julia F 52 2 Partnered Senior Manager
43 Sofie F 55 2 Single Senior Manager
44 William M 41 0 Single Senior Manager
45 Sue F 36 0 Single Senior Manager
46 Maggie F 35 0 Single Senior Manager
47 Amy F 45 2 Partnered Senior Manager
48 Edward M 38 2 Partnered Executive
49 Tony M 47 2 Partnered Executive
50 Jasper M 30 0 Partnered Senior Manager
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6 Page 15 of 18 6
Funding No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to declare.
Ethics approval The Human Research Ethics Committee of Griffith University has granted approval for
the study.
Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the
study.
Confidentiality All names are pseudonyms in this research.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Al-Bahrani, M., Shindi, Y. A., Al-Lawati, S. M. A. S., & Bakkar, B. (2021). A path analysis of effects
of the career locus of control dimensions and career decision self-efficacy on career aspiration.
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 26(1), 367–375. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02673
843. 2021. 19618 31
Anderson, E. S. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287–337. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1086/ 233897
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2018). Leading for Change: A Blueprint for Cultural Diver-
sity and Inclusive Leadership Revisited (2018). https:// www. human rights. gov. au/ sites/ defau lt/
files/ docum ent/ publi cation/ Leadi ng% 20for% 20Cha nge_ Bluep rint2 018_ FINAL_ Web. pdf
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management
Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.
Benschop, Y., Van den Brink, M., Doorewaard, H., & Leenders, J. (2013). Discourses of ambition,
gender and part-time work. Human Relations, 66(5), 699–723.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001). Are CEOs rewarded for luck? The ones without principals
are. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3), 901–932.
Bornat, J., Henry, L., & Raghuram, P. (2011). The making of careers, the making of a discipline:
Luck and chance in migrant careers in geriatric medicine. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(3),
342–350.
Bourne, D., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2008). Strategies for combating gendered perceptions of careers.
Career Development International, 13(4), 320–332.
Boyer-Kassem, T., & Duchêne, S. (2019). On discrimination in health insurance. Social Choice and
Welfare, 55(1), 5–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00355- 019- 01227-0
Bright, J. E., Pryor, R. G., Chan, E. W. M., & Rijanto, J. (2009). Chance events in career development:
Influence, control and multiplicity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(1), 14–25.
Bright, J. E. H., Pryor, R. G. L., & Harpham, L. (2005). The role of chance events in career decision
making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 561–576. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2004. 05.
001
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. Routledge.
Cho, Y., Park, J., Han, S. J., & Ho, Y. (2019). “A woman CEO? You’d better think twice!”: Exploring
career challenges of women CEOs at multinational corporations in South Korea. Career Develop-
ment International., 24, 91–108.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 16 of 18
Cho, Y., Park, J. W., Han, S. K., Ju, B., You, J., Ju, A., & Park, H. Y. (2017). How do South Korean
female executives’ definitions of career success differ from those of male executives? European
Journal of Training and Development, 41(6), 490–507. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ejtd- 12- 2016- 0093
Cimirotić, R., Duller, V., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., Gärtner, B., & Hiebl, M. R. W. (2017). Enabling fac-
tors that contribute to women reaching leadership positions in business organizations: The case of
management accountants. Management Research Review, 40(2), 165–194. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/
MRR- 10- 2014- 0233
Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling: the woman manager. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Davies, S. R., & Pham, B.-C. (2023). Luck and the ‘situations’ of research. Social Studies of Science,
53(2), 287–299.
Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What
is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(1), 80.
Diezmann, C., Grieshaber, S., Diezmann, C., & Grieshaber, S. (2019). Luck: The Double-Edged Sword.
Women Professors: Who Makes It and How?, 155–168
Dworkin, R. (2018). What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. The Notion of Equality. (pp. 143–
205). Routledge.
Dworkin, R. (1981). What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10,
283–345.
El-Sawad, A., Cohen, L., & Arnold, J. (2005). The Accidental Career? Luck at Work, 21st Colloquium of
the European Group of Organizational Studies (EGOS), Berlin, Germany
Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organiza-
tion Studies, 26(6), 915–939. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01708 40605 054610
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7(2),
177–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19460 171. 2013. 798239
Fisman, R., & O’Neill, M. (2009). Gender differences in beliefs on the returns to effort evidence from the
world values survey. Journal of Human Resources, 44(4), 858–870.
Foucault, M. (2019). Power: the essential works of michel foucault 1954–1984. London: Penguin UK.
Gill, D., & Prowse, V. (2014). Gender differences and dynamics in competition: The role of luck. Quanti-
tative Economics, 5(2), 351–376.
Hafer, J. C., & Gresham, G. (2008). Luck’s role in business success: Why it’s too important to leave
to chance. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management., 9, 295–315. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21818/
001c. 17152
Hannabuss, S. (2008). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Library Review. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1108/ 00242 53081 08540 80
Hirschi, A. (2010). The role of chance events in the school-to-work transition: The influence of demo-
graphic, personality and career development variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(1),
39–49.
Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2013). From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a
paradigm shift in business research. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1377–1388.
Jasko, K., Pyrkosz-Pacyna, J., Czarnek, G., Dukała, K., & Szastok, M. (2020). The STEM graduate:
Immediately after graduation, men and women already differ in job outcomes, attributions for suc-
cess, and desired job characteristics. Journal of Social Issues. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ josi. 12392
Kim, H. K. (2010). Luck and the gendered social structure. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 31(1),
67–92.
Kindsiko, E., & Baruch, Y. (2019). Careers of PhD graduates: The role of chance events and how to man-
age them. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 122–140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2019. 01. 010
Kossek, E. E., Su, R., & Wu, L. S. (2017). “Opting out” or “Pushed out”? Integrating perspectives on
women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of Management, 43(1),
228–254. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06316 671582
Krumboltz, J. D., Foley, P. F., & Cotter, E. W. (2013). Applying the happenstance learning theory to
involuntary career transitions. The Career Development Quarterly, 61(1), 15–26.
Lewis, P., & Simpson, R. (2010). Meritocracy, difference and choice: Women’s experiences of advan-
tage and disadvantage at work. Gender in Management: an International Journal, 25(3), 165–169.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 17542 41101 10363 74
Lewis, P., & Simpson, R. (2015). Understanding and researching ‘choice’ in women’s career trajectories.
In A. M. Broadbridge & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in management: get-
ting in, getting on, getting out (pp. 44–60). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6 Page 17 of 18 6
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2001). Egalitarianism, option luck, and responsibility. Ethics, 111(3), 548–579.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 233526
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2015a). Luck egalitarianism. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2015b). Luck egalitarians versus relational egalitarians: On the prospects of a
pluralist account of egalitarian justice. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 45(2), 220–241.
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2019). Precís of luck egalitarianism. Critical Review of International Social and
Political Philosophy, 22(3), 245–252.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and
social capital. Business Horizons. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bushor. 2003. 11. 007
Martin, J. (2003). Feminist theory and critical theory: unexplored synergies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
McMahon, M., Watson, M., & Bimrose, J. (2012). Career adaptability: A qualitative understanding from
the stories of older women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 762–768.
Mitchell, K. E., Levin, S., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1999). Planned happenstance: Constructing unexpected
career opportunities. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(2), 115–124. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/j. 1556- 6676. 1999. tb024 31.x
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and sub-
jective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1111/j. 1744- 6570. 2005. 00515.x
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too
much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ qjec. 122.3.
1067
Nzioka, A. M. (2013). Hotel General Managers Perception Of Factors Related To Women Career Pro-
gression In The Hospitality Industry At The Coast Region Of Kenya
Ottsen, C. L. (2019). Lucky to reach the top? Gender in Management: An International Journal, 34(7),
541–553. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ gm- 11- 2017- 0158
Özbilgin, M., & Healy, G. (2004). The gendered nature of career development of university professors:
The case of Turkey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), 358–371.
Özkanlı, Ö., & White, K. (2008). Leadership and strategic choices: Female professors in Australia and
Turkey. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1), 53–63. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 13600 80070 17450 51
Poorhosseinzadeh, M., & Strachan, G. (2020). Straightjackets of male domination in senior positions:
Revisiting acker’s ‘ideal worker’ and the construction of the ‘ideal executive.’ British Journal of
Management, 32, 1421–1439.
Poorhosseinzadeh, M., Strachan, G., & Broadbent, K. (2019). Disembodied senior managers: the per-
spective of male senior managers in an australian hospitality organisation. In M. Fotaki & A. Pullen
(Eds.), Diversity, affect and embodiment in organizing (pp. 225–245). Springer.
Roulet, T., & Laker, B. (2022). Your career needs a little luck. Here’s how to cultivate it.
Sagone, E., & De Caroli, M. E. (2014). Locus of control and beliefs about superstition and luck in adoles-
cents: What’s their relationship? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 318–323.
Sauder, M. (2020). A Sociology of Luck. Sociological Theory, 38(3), 193–216. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
07352 75120 941178
Shin, Y., & Lee, J. (2017). Predictors of career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment,
26(2), 322–337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10690 72717 692981
Sieverding, M., & Koch, S. (2009). (Self-)evaluation of computer competence: How gender matters.
Computers & Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2008. 11. 016
Soklaridis, S., Kuper, A., Whitehead, C. R., Ferguson, G., Taylor, V. H., & Zahn, C. (2017). Gender bias
in hospital leadership: A qualitative study on the experiences of women CEOs. Journal of Health
Organization and Management, 31(2), 253–268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ jhom- 12- 2016- 0243
Spurk, D., Meinecke, A. L., Kauffeld, S., & Volmer, J. (2015). Gender, professional networks, and sub-
jective career success within early academic science careers. Journal of Personnel Psychology,
14(3), 121–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 1866- 5888/ a0001 31
Swim, J. K., & Sanna, L. J. (1996). He’s skilled, she’s lucky: A meta-analysis of observers’ attributions
for women’s and men’s successes and failures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5),
507–519.
Tessman, L. (2009). Expecting Bad Luck. Hypatia, 24(1), 9–28. http:// www. jstor. org. libra rypro xy. griff
ith. edu. au/ stable/ 20618 117
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Gender Issues (2024) 41:6
1 3
6 Page 18 of 18
Watson, T. J. (2001). In search of management: culture, chaos and control in managerial work. Thomson
Learning.
Wei, W., & Cho, T. (2013). Work-family conflict influences on females’ career development through
career expectations. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 01(03), 43–50. https://
doi. org/ 10. 4236/ jhrss. 2013. 13007
White, B., Cox, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Women’s career development: a study of high flyers. Black-
well Publishing.
Williamson, T. (2016). Abductive philosophy. The Philosophical Forum, 47, 263–280.
Wood, G. J., & Lindorff, M. (2001). Sex differences in explanations for career progress. Women in Man-
agement Review, 16(4), 152–162.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of
hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800.
Zhong, Y. G., Couch, S., & Blum, S. C. (2011). Factors affecting women’s career advancement in the
hospitality industry: Perceptions of students, educators and industry recruiters. Journal of Hospital-
ity & Tourism Education, 23(4), 5–13.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Authors and Aliations
MahanPoorhosseinzadeh1 · MustafaF.Özbilgin2 · GlendaStrachan3
* Mustafa F. Özbilgin
mustafa.ozbilgin@brunel.ac.uk
Mahan Poorhosseinzadeh
Mahan.zadeh@aib.edu.au
Glenda Strachan
g.strachan@griffith.edu.au
1 Australian Institute ofBusiness, Adelaide, Australia
2 Brunel Business School, London, UK
3 Department ofEmployment Relations andHuman Resources, Griffith University, Brisbane,
Australia
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Content uploaded by Mustafa F Ozbilgin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mustafa F Ozbilgin on Jan 19, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
