The Impact of Motherhood on Women’s Career Progression: A Scoping Review of Evidence-Based Interventions

Abstract

(1) Background: Despite the progress made by women in the workplace, mothers still face systemic barriers that prevent them from advancing professionally. This “motherhood penalty” involves a variety of discriminatory practices and experiences that mothers can face at work, including being held to stricter standards regarding salary and recruitment. Despite ongoing research on the association between motherhood and career outcomes, few studies specifically explore how motherhood impacts career advancement and, consequently, access to leadership. This scoping review seeks to gain an understanding of how motherhood impacts women’s career progression, and how interventions can address the underrepresentation of mothers in leadership. (2) Methods: Following the PRISMA-ScR framework, we analyzed 52 articles from 2010 to 2022, drawn from 10 databases. (3) Results: The results showed both negative and positive impacts of motherhood on career progression, affecting mothers’ attitudes, feelings, and behaviors and yielding changes in interpersonal relationships and work conditions. Intersectionality is highlighted, urging a nuanced examination of challenges faced by mothers from a diversity of backgrounds. Recommendations for interventions include individual and institutional efforts, comprising societal support structures, organizational policy changes, and cultural shifts. (4) Conclusions: This scoping review offers an updated perspective on a classic challenge, providing practical insights for a more inclusive and structural understanding of the career trajectories of working mothers.

Full text

Citation: Torres, A.J.C.; Barbosa-Silva,
L.; Oliveira-Silva, L.C.; Miziara, O.P.P.;
Guahy, U.C.R.; Fisher, A.N.; Ryan,
M.K. The Impact of Motherhood on
Women’s Career Progression: A
Scoping Review of Evidence-Based
Interventions. Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14040275
Academic Editors: A. Rui Gomes and
Catarina Morais
Received: 27 February 2024
Revised: 19 March 2024
Accepted: 23 March 2024
Published: 26 March 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
behavioral
sciences
Review
The Impact of Motherhood on Women’s Career Progression: A
Scoping Review of Evidence-Based Interventions
Ana Júlia Calegari Torres 1,* , Letícia Barbosa-Silva 1, Ligia Carolina Oliveira-Silva 1,2,
Olívia Pillar Perez Miziara 1, Ully Carolina Rodrigues Guahy 3, Alexandra N. Fisher 2
and Michelle K. Ryan 2,4
1Institute of Psychology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Av. Pará, 1720-Bloco 2C, Av. Maranhão,
s/n-Campus Umuarama, Uberlândia 38405-240, MG, Brazil; leticiabarbosasilva4@ufu.br (L.B.-S.);
ligiacarolina.oliveira-silva@anu.edu.au (L.C.O.-S.); olivia.miziara@ufu.br (O.P.P.M.)
2
The Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia;
alexandra.fisher@anu.edu.au (A.N.F.); michelle.ryan@anu.edu.au (M.K.R.)
3Institute of Psychology, University of São Paulo, Av. Professor Mello Moraes, 1721-Butantã,
São Paulo 05508-030, SP, Brazil; uguahy@gmail.com
4The Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Nettelbosje 2,
9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands
*Correspondence: ana.calegari@ufu.br; Tel.: +55-(34)-996688201
Abstract: (1) Background: Despite the progress made by women in the workplace, mothers still
face systemic barriers that prevent them from advancing professionally. This “motherhood penalty”
involves a variety of discriminatory practices and experiences that mothers can face at work, including
being held to stricter standards regarding salary and recruitment. Despite ongoing research on
the association between motherhood and career outcomes, few studies specifically explore how
motherhood impacts career advancement and, consequently, access to leadership. This scoping
review seeks to gain an understanding of how motherhood impacts women’s career progression,
and how interventions can address the underrepresentation of mothers in leadership. (2) Methods:
Following the PRISMA-ScR framework, we analyzed 52 articles from 2010 to 2022, drawn from
10 databases.
(3) Results: The results showed both negative and positive impacts of motherhood
on career progression, affecting mothers’ attitudes, feelings, and behaviors and yielding changes in
interpersonal relationships and work conditions. Intersectionality is highlighted, urging a nuanced
examination of challenges faced by mothers from a diversity of backgrounds. Recommendations
for interventions include individual and institutional efforts, comprising societal support structures,
organizational policy changes, and cultural shifts. (4) Conclusions: This scoping review offers an
updated perspective on a classic challenge, providing practical insights for a more inclusive and
structural understanding of the career trajectories of working mothers.
Keywords: motherhood; interventions; review; career; progression; leadership
1. Introduction
In the workplace, mothers face a motherhood penalty, where they are perceived as
being unfit for leadership roles, are evaluated as less competent and less committed to
their careers, receive lower salaries, and are denied advancement opportunities [
1
–
3
].
The experience of motherhood often comes with a lower sense of control and belonging,
followed by elevated productivity demands [
4
]. As a consequence, mothers tend to occupy
fewer leadership positions than men (including fathers) and childfree women.
This penalty is, at least in part, due to gendered norms and cultures inherent in career
development policy and practice, which still focuses on men’s experiences, values male at-
tributes, and reinforces traditional notions of leadership [
4
]. Yet, to date, there has not been,
to our knowledge, a systematic examination of how motherhood impacts career progression
Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14040275 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 2 of 17
and access to leadership. Additionally, just describing the problem is not enough, as we
also need to visualize which and how interventions can offer support to mothers through
multidimensional sources. This should include not only their behavior as employees, but
also how organizational culture and government policies, for instance, can boost mothers’
career progression and hopefully pave their way towards leadership positions.
In the current research, we aim to fill this gap by conducting a scoping review of the
literature to understand (1) how motherhood impacts women’s career progression and
(2) how interventions can address the underrepresentation of mothers in leadership roles.
In doing so, this review will offer valuable insight into how to reimagine leadership with
motherhood in mind.
2. Barriers to Leadership for Mothers
Although notions of “mothering” are widely acclaimed and valued throughout society,
difficulties in finding balance between career and motherhood remain, resulting in career
breaks and reduced work hours [
4
,
5
]. Cross-country research demonstrates that there is
a decline in mothers’ participation in the workforce after childbirth. On average, 24%
of women exit the labor market in their first year of motherhood. Five years later, the
percentage drops to 17% and after a decade, still 15% are absent [
6
]. Considering the rather
unquestioned expectation for continued work throughout the years to favor career progres-
sion, not surprisingly, mothers remain markedly underrepresented in
leadership positions.
Research has offered several explanations for why this might be. The first is stereotypes
about gender and leadership [
7
]. Leadership remains largely associated with stereotypically
masculine attributes such as competitiveness, aggression, and selfishness [
8
], contributing
to a scenario where women are viewed as less equipped to assume leadership roles [
9
].
This phenomenon, known as ‘role incongruity’ [
10
], highlights the expected inconsistencies
between the traditional female gender role and the leadership role. The equation of leader-
ship with masculinity means that women and gender-diverse people who do not conform
to these stereotypic expectations are at a disadvantage when applying for leadership roles,
as they are less likely to be seen as typical ‘leaders’. This is especially true for mothers, as
the qualities expected of a mother, such as warmth and affection, are directly at odds with
the stereotypical qualities expected of a leader [10,11].
The demands of motherhood may also affect the ability of mothers to perform in
leadership roles. The motherhood penalty comes with an assumption that mothers are less
committed or competent, which implies promotion delays, limited career options, or the
need to make potentially career-harming decisions to meet children’s needs [
12
]. With the
current economic model of work, the rooted idea of the ‘ideal employee’ implies a person
without domestic and family responsibilities who can devote long hours to uninterrupted
work [
13
,
14
]. This assumption often presumes that another person, usually a woman, is
at home taking care of household chores and caring responsibilities, whereas men are
expected to perform the majority of financial and provider responsibilities within their
households [
15
,
16
]. Gender roles within heterosexual relationships reinforce this model,
such that mothers often end up working a taxing ‘double shift’ to manage the demands
of both home and career, which may even lead to lower productivity and poor mental
health [17,18].
Women with children are, therefore, caught between a rock and a hard place where to
be a good mother, they must prioritize their families over their careers, but to be a good
leader, they must prioritize their careers over their families. Unable to accommodate such
contradictory expectations, mothers commonly deviate from the traditional career path,
taking career breaks, reducing working hours, or even leaving the workforce indefinitely,
all of which negatively affects their chances of career advancement. This may cause mothers
to forgo leadership opportunities or even cut back at work in an effort to be a ‘good’ mother.
When they decide to return to the paid workforce, mothers are less likely to be interviewed,
hired, or promoted, and they receive lower salaries [
18
]. The incompatibility between
career and family life can lead to a myriad of negative consequences for working mothers,

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 3 of 17
including feelings of guilt, emotional overload, and fatigue, as the requirement to perform
both roles properly is incompatible with reality [19,20].
Taken together, these situations create a maternal wall, composed of formal and
informal forms of discrimination that hinder women’s professional advancement after
having children [
21
]. Understanding how motherhood influences career advancement and
the path to leadership attainment is therefore crucial to creating inclusive and supportive
environments for paid working mothers. Additionally, acknowledging these impacts
can better inform organizations regarding how to develop interventions which recognize
the multidimensional (individual, interpersonal, organizational, and societal) nature of
the issue.
3. The Need for Interventions to Address the Underrepresentation of Mothers
in Leadership
Interventions encompass a broad spectrum of activities, treatments, programs, or ini-
tiatives designed to tackle specific issues, achieve defined outcomes, or influence particular
variables [
22
]. Considering the specific barriers that motherhood imposes on women’s
career advancement, gender- and motherhood-sensitive interventions may offer impor-
tant opportunities for leveling the playing field if they aim to reduce gender inequality
and transform social conditions by addressing structural issues such as biases and stereo-
types [7].
Interventions aimed at transforming traditional notions of leadership are of particular
importance. Therefore, rethinking leadership in the context of motherhood can be a strategic
imperative for fostering environments that thrive on diverse approaches to problem-solving.
These targeted efforts can help reconcile paid work and other roles assumed by women,
promoting a more supportive environment for working mothers.
4. Current Study
Considering that mothers face systematic barriers to leadership positions, it is impor-
tant to analyze how motherhood may influence women’s professional ascension and the
kinds of interventions that may help their path towards leadership. To initially map the
issue, we first conducted a rapid review of the literature about motherhood and leadership,
which revealed a scarcity of research about mothers in formal leadership positions and
a particular lack of research that considers the role of interventions. Due to this paucity,
the search strategies were expanded to encompass a broader scope through the use of the
term “career progression” instead of “leadership”. A new rapid search was accomplished,
which evidenced the feasibility of a scoping review to analyze career progression instead
of leadership.
Career progression extends beyond mere leadership and encompasses a broader
spectrum of career aspects, including various professional advancements that may not
necessarily involve formal leadership roles. Indeed, both the prevailing definitions of career
advancement and leadership often perpetuate a male-centric viewpoint, concentrating
solely on high-ranking executive positions rarely held by mothers. Adopting a broader per-
spective allowed us to recognize and embrace the diversity inherent in professional success,
considering the varied career trajectories that women, particularly mothers, may pursue.
Although the literature has advanced in terms of analyzing how motherhood may
impact career progression, to our knowledge, there is no systematic literature review on
this topic, or even on interventions in this context. This gap is concerning, as the design
of actions and strategies to foster mothers’ economic and labor participation need to be
grounded on a solid foundation of evidence-based research. To achieve this, there is a
need to explore and map the state of the art on the topic, which can be done through a
scoping review. Additionally, a scoping review allows for identifying the current gaps in
the literature, which is paramount for guiding research agendas. By mapping how the latest
research has investigated the impact of motherhood and career progression, we expect to

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 4 of 17
offer systematized evidence for fostering future research and interventions aimed to help
mothers ascend professionally. The following research questions were investigated:
(1) How does motherhood impact women’s career progression?
(2) How can interventions address the underrepresentation of mothers in leadership?
5. Method
5.1. Study Design and Report Guidelines
We conducted this scoping review based on Arksey and O’Malley’s [
23
] five-step
methodological framework: (1) identifying pertinent research questions, (2) conducting a
comprehensive search for studies relevant to our research questions, (3) employing a sys-
tematic study selection process with predetermined eligibility criteria, (4) charting relevant
data from included studies using Rayyan as a data extraction tool, and (5) summarizing
and reporting the results. We also employed the preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews [
24
], and four of the authors (AJ,
LB, OM, UG) assessed the papers for quality according to PRISMA-ScR checklists.
5.2. Search Strategy and Databases
Our search strategy was grounded in the peer review of electronic search strategies
checklist [
25
]. We used the following databases: Lilacs, Pepsic, Scielo, PsycInfo, EBSCO,
Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We chose ten
databases, in line with best practice [
26
], and due to their coverage of most publications on
the topic. We also included three Brazilian databases (Lilacs, Pepsic, Scielo), considering
the nationality of most of the authors, the fact that they are open access, and that numerous
Brazilian authors publish in English in the Brazilian journals that are featured in these
respective databases. We filtered peer-reviewed articles from 2010 to 2022, including publi-
cations in English. We used the search string for the title, abstract, and keywords fields.
We used the population (working mothers), concepts (motherhood, career progres-
sion), and context (workplaces, academy, and organizations) framework to define the search
terms. After the refinements, we used the following string for the search: (“parental role”
OR “mother” OR “mothers” OR “motherhood” OR “mom” OR “moms”) AND (“career
pathways” OR “career trajectory” OR “career breaks” OR “career interruptions” OR “child
penalties” OR “motherhood penalty” OR “motherhood bias” OR “career success” OR
“career achievement” OR “career progression” OR “career advancement” OR “professional
advancement” OR “job progression” OR “job advancement” OR “work advancement” OR
“work progression” OR “maternal wall”).
5.3. Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection Process
Our eligibility criteria were: (a) articles published in peer-reviewed journals;
(b) articles
written in English; (c) full-text availability; (d) publication year between 2010 and 2022;
(e) quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods; (f) samples should include women; (g) title,
objective, and/or variables should address motherhood, career advancement, and inter-
ventions. We analyzed only articles in English due to limitations of time and resources, and
the choice to focus on a 10-year timeframe was made in order to provide a contemporary
overview of the topic. Articles with mixed-gender samples were included as long as they
had separate data on mothers.
We uploaded the articles retrieved from the databases to Rayyan [
27
], with duplicates
excluded and the initial screening of titles and abstracts conducted by three of the authors,
coded as AJ, LB, and UG. After the screening process, we fully read the remaining articles,
which were independently evaluated by the same three authors. A fourth researcher helped
the authors reach a consensus.
We first conceptualized our research questions and purpose based on a rapid review
of the motherhood and leadership literature. The rapid review revealed that there is little
research about mothers in leadership positions, so using career progression as a term

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 5 of 17
proved to be more comprehensive. Afterwards, we elected a population, concepts, and
context (PCC) framework to improve the research question and purpose of this study:
Population: working mothers over 18 years old;
Concept: motherhood, career progression, leadership;
Context: academia and organizations.
5.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis
Four of the authors independently conducted data extraction using a standardized
data extraction sheet. The extracted information encompassed author details, publication
dates, journal main nationality, first authors’ nationality, aims, study type (qualitative,
quantitative, or mixed methods), research design (experiment, case study, longitudinal, or
cross-sectional), data collection method, participant sample, context, intervention type (if
applicable), main results, conclusions, and key findings that relate to the research questions.
5.5. Study Selection Process
The search and selection of articles is detailed in Figure 1. Initially, we found
895 articles
in the 10 selected databases, but after excluding duplicates, we analyzed 413 articles based
on their titles, abstracts, and keywords. In the eligibility analysis, we fully read 91 articles,
and the final sample consisted of 52 articles that met all the inclusion criteria. The inter-rater
agreement rate was 49.5% between the three authors that worked as judges (AJ, LB, UG).
Behav.Sci.2024,14,xFORPEERREVIEW5of18

WeuploadedthearticlesretrievedfromthedatabasestoRayyan[27],withdupli‐
catesexcludedandtheinitialscreeningoftitlesandabstractsconductedbythreeofthe
authors,codedasAJ,LB,andUG.Afterthescreeningprocess,wefullyreadthere‐
mainingarticles,whichwereindependentlyevaluatedbythesamethreeauthors.A
fourthresearcherhelpedtheauthorsreachaconsensus.
Wefirstconceptualizedourresearchquestionsandpurposebasedonarapidreview
ofthemotherhoodandleadershipliterature.Therapidreviewrevealedthatthereislile
researchaboutmothersinleadershippositions,sousingcareerprogressionasaterm
provedtobemorecomprehensive.Afterwards,weelectedapopulation,concepts,and
context(PCC)frameworktoimprovetheresearchquestionandpurposeofthisstudy:
Population:workingmothersover18yearsold;
Concept:motherhood,careerprogression,leadership;
Context:academiaandorganizations.
5.4.DataExtractionandSynthesis
Fouroftheauthorsindependentlyconducteddataextractionusingastandardized
dataextractionsheet.Theextractedinformationencompassedauthordetails,publication
dates,journalmainnationality,firstauthors’nationality,aims,studytype(qualitative,
quantitative,ormixedmethods),researchdesign(experiment,casestudy,longitudinal,
orcross‐sectional),datacollectionmethod,participantsample,context,interventiontype
(ifapplicable),mainresults,conclusions,andkeyfindingsthatrelatetotheresearch
questions.
5.5.StudySelectionProcess
ThesearchandselectionofarticlesisdetailedinFigure1.Initially,wefound895
articlesinthe10selecteddatabases,butafterexcludingduplicates,weanalyzed413ar‐
ticlesbasedontheirtitles,abstracts,andkeywords.Intheeligibilityanalysis,wefully
read91articles,andthefinalsampleconsistedof52articlesthatmetalltheinclusion
criteria.Theinter‐rateragreementratewas49.5%betweenthethreeauthorsthatworked
asjudges(AJ,LB,UG).

Figure 1. Stages of data collection for the literature review.
6. Results
General Characteristics
Of the 52 articles we included, 48.1% were quantitative, 34.6% were qualitative, and
17.3% used mixed methods. Most used a cross-sectional design (53.8%) and surveys as the
data collection method (63.5%). The highest percentage of author nationality, regarding
the university of affiliation, was the USA (28.8%), while most of the journals were based in
the United Kingdom (44.2%), according to information extracted from the Scimago Journal
& Country Rank. The journal with the most publications (9.6%) was Gender, Work &
Organization. Regarding the year of publication, 2021 was the year with the most papers
(11), followed by 2022 (7). Finally, most of the studies, 55.8%, used a female-only sample,

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 6 of 17
the research was conducted in organizations (51.9%), and it generally did not distinguish
between the knowledge field of the participants (61.5%; see Table 1for details).
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Categories n %
Nationality of the 1st author
USA 15 28.8%
Germany 7 13.5%
Others (e.g., Sweden, UK, Norway, Austria, Republic of Korea) 30 57.7%
Journal origin
United Kingdom 23 44.2%
USA 15 28.8%
Others (e.g., Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany) 14 26.9%
Publishing journals
Gender, Work & Organization 5 9.6%
Acta Sociologica 2 3.8%
Advances in Life Course Research 2 3.8%
Gender & Society 2 3.8%
Gender in Management: An international journal 2 3.8%
Labour Economics 2 3.8%
Social Sciences 2 3.8%
Research design
Quantitative 25 48.1%
Qualitative 18 34.6%
Mixed methods 9 17.3%
Research design
Cross-sectional 28 53.8%
Experiment 21 40.4%
Longitudinal 2 3.8%
Data collection method
Survey 23 44.2%
Interview 33 63.5%
Sample composition
Female 29 55.8%
Mixed gender 23 44.2%
Context
Organization 27 51.9%
Academia 18 34.6%
Not reported 7 13.5%
Knowledge field
No distinction 32 61.5%
STEM 4 7.7%
Medicine 3 5.8%
Others (e.g., tourism and hospitality, accounting, advertising, education) 13 25.0%
We gathered and analyzed further categories addressing the main findings of each
paper to answer the two research questions. More detail on the findings for each question
are available in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.
7. Discussion
7.1. Question 1: How Does Motherhood Impact Women’s Career Progression?
7.1.1. More Barriers to Leadership for Mothers
Unsurprisingly, the reviewed literature reinforced that women are still less likely to
occupy a leadership position after becoming mothers and indicated multiple barriers to
women’s leadership and career progression more generally [
28
,
29
]. Our analysis evidenced
that many of the barriers that women face with regard to their career progression are treated
as internal, personal choices rather than structural problems, e.g., references [30–32].

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 7 of 17
The most frequent internalized barrier had to do with the societal expectations that
mothers must put the needs of others before their own, sacrificing their own interests
and career aspirations to fulfill motherly duties, e.g., references [
33
–
35
]. Mothers still face
identity conflicts caused by unrealistic ideals of what is a good mother and a successful
worker [
36
,
37
], in addition to the emotional challenge of being mostly responsible for what
their children will become [
38
]. Women declined promotion offers, in part, because of the
double burden caused by the accumulation of family and leadership responsibilities, e.g.,
references [30,32,33].
A lower sense of control over professional life was identified, followed by negative
feelings like stress and guilt, lower satisfaction with their achievements, more fear of job
loss, and a lower sense of entitlement to use benefits such as reduced hours or maternity
leave [
35
,
39
–
42
]. Additionally, mothers experienced a lower sense of belonging at work, as
they often had to prove themselves by putting more effort in to achieve higher positions
than their childfree counterparts [30].
In contrast to the focus on internalized barriers such as self-blaming and self-management
of motherhood, other studies analyzed more contextual aspects. Time availability was
identified to be one of the major contextual barriers to mothers in senior positions or
leadership aspirants, as caregiving responsibilities put additional constraints on their time
and availability [
31
,
35
]. Compared to fathers, mothers are more limited in terms of their
availability to participate in events outside of work hours or to travel for business [
43
].
Therefore, the evidence shows they are disregarded from positions that require extended
time away from home, a common demand for many leadership roles [
44
,
45
]. As a conse-
quence, some studies emphasized the monetary losses post-motherhood, focusing on wage
penalties, incoming losses due to reduced working hours, and transitions to lower-earning
occupations [31,46].
Motherhood was also associated with lower job retention due to barriers like poor
access to childcare or other work–life balance challenges, e.g., references [
31
,
32
]. In some
cases, mothers reported experiencing career interruptions in the form of returning later
than expected to work, resorting to informal, flexible, or part-time work, postponing
promotion opportunities, or even dropping out of the workforce indefinitely, e.g., ref-
erences
[28,33]
. Other papers addressed how exclusively female parental leave policies
contribute to reducing women’s career opportunities, professional networks, and partner-
ships, e.g., references [30,36,47].
7.1.2. The Weight and Endurance of the Motherhood Penalty
The analyzed articles demonstrated the persistence of the motherhood penalty, as they
documented the ways in which mothers are impacted by notions of the ‘ideal worker’ who
is free from domestic responsibilities and able to work overtime whenever needed. Such
stereotypes remain the default assumption in many workplaces and are in direct conflict
with societal expectations of mothers, implying they should be the primary caregivers
and homemakers within their families [
11
]. The consequences are that mothers experience
elevated turnover rates, frequent employment transitions, low-paying positions, and a
lower likelihood of being recommended for hiring in comparison to men [47–51].
The motherhood penalty also evidences how mothers are commonly devalued and
subject to scrutiny and doubts over their commitment to their work. The belief that women
“use” pregnancy or motherhood to avoid work still exists [
38
]; mothers face constant
discrimination and have their personal life as a current topic of debate at workplaces, in
addition to being labeled as “the pregnant one” or “the one with the baby” [
52
]. Women
may be penalized just by achieving childbearing age, corroborating the negative impact
that even the prospect of motherhood may have on their careers.
Due to the often unrealistic expectations of time availability and flexibility in leadership
positions, the motherhood penalty contributes to the perception that mothers are unsuitable
for leadership roles. Benard and Correll’s [
48
] study, for instance, showed how mothers or
pregnant women are rated as less competent, less committed, held to stricter standards,

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 8 of 17
and penalized in salary and hiring decisions when compared to their childless counterparts.
Mothers are also assigned to less interesting tasks, are not seen as suitable for management
positions, and have to struggle to maintain their credibility [
18
,
53
]. Similar results were
found by Thébaud and Taylor [
51
] and Schlehofer [
52
], which show how mothers are
subjected to reduced competency perceptions and are viewed as less hirable.
As if it was not enough, there was also evidence of a dominance penalty for those
who excel during motherhood: highly successful mothers were rated as less likable and
warm, which can lead to penalization in other forms such as salary, hiring, and other
organizational rewards, e.g., references [
54
]. Therefore, we can say that research in the last
10 years attests to how society pressures mothers to bear the brunt of responsibilities around
childcare and family life, often compromising their career aspirations and progression.
7.1.3. The Motherhood Advantage?
In contrast to the penalties outlined above, some of the reviewed articles highlighted
positive career outcomes linked to motherhood, as the experience of motherhood is many-
sided and has the potential to promote new skills development. For instance, women
reported improved work relationships, perceiving greater appreciation by their colleagues
as working mothers than they did before having children [
51
], and more efficient time
management and problem-solving techniques [
55
]. Other studies indicated women felt
greater motivation to complete different work responsibilities after becoming mothers, such
as finishing coursework, as well as an increase in cognitive knowledge, seen to be a result
of coping with motherhood challenges such as taking care of children and multitasking to
complete household chores [32,43,55,56].
One article in particular showed a wide range of positive impacts of motherhood for
job performance and career advancement in the U.S. tourism and hospitality industry [
55
].
This study highlighted how working mothers may experience more courage and increased
confidence to pursue positions involving management and leadership roles. Mothers were
reported to have improved willpower and emotional intelligence, which included more
patience, tolerance, positive emotions and attitudes, confidence, and a stronger mindset.
As for more tangible outcomes, unexpectedly, Ma [
56
] and Magnusson [
43
] showed
that wages can be positively impacted by parenthood for men and women, as they found
that after childbirth, average wages were higher for married/cohabiting respondents with
children for fathers and mothers. Regarding career progression, Morgenroth et al. [
18
]
found that stereotypes of mothers are seen as more similar to stereotypes of managers and
ideal managers than stereotypes of women in general, evidencing a benefit for mothers
in terms of stereotype content. Therefore, despite working mothers experiencing more
negative than positive impacts overall, the reviewed studies demonstrate how motherhood
can also bring certain benefits to career progression.
7.2. Question 2: How Can Interventions Address the Underrepresentation of Mothers
in Leadership?
7.2.1. Can Individual-Focused Strategies Work as Effective Interventions?
Some of the interventions we identified in the career literature focus on individual-
focused strategies; that is, women’s individual efforts and agency to manage their careers.
Career counseling is one example, which was suggested to help mothers in assessing
career goals, developing strategies, and making informed career decisions [
57
]. Likewise,
therapeutic support services such as individual counseling or support groups are also
indicated to assist them to address internalized stigma, navigate societal expectations, and
develop coping strategies to deal with the challenges of balancing motherhood and career.
Skills development was identified as another personal strategy to reduce family–work
conflict and maintain professional relevance even if mothers choose to slow down their
career progression temporarily. Among these, time management skills were proposed to
facilitate the balance between motherhood and career demands [
58
]. Learning negotiation

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 9 of 17
skills, in turn, was proposed to support mothers in discussing working conditions with
their supervisors or human resources [59].
Seeking further education was a commonly suggested strategy for tackling career
progression barriers. Education on women’s rights and labor laws, for instance, were recom-
mended to make women aware of their rights and legal protections against discrimination
at work [
46
,
60
]. Financial literacy education was also proposed as something important
for mothers, since budgeting, savings, and investment strategies could help them navigate
career transitions, especially during economic crises [32,44].
What these strategies have in common is that they all focus on individual efforts
women can pursue—which usually involve changing themselves or their behavior—to
“compensate” workplaces for their motherhood. Such individual strategies may be useful
to a degree, but they do not acknowledge the societal, cultural, and economic barriers
women face. In their review, Ryan and Morgenroth [
61
] classify such interventions as those
that try to provide women with the ‘right’ tools and skills to achieve leadership positions.
However, these may end up being problematic due to a number of reasons such as the
reinforcement of gender stereotypes, which indirectly blame women for inequalities and
fail to address the root of gender inequalities. Women, especially mothers, should not
be solely held accountable for changing a system that inherently perpetuates inequality
and discrimination.
Beyond the interventions identified in the reviewed articles, recommendations from
Oliveira-Silva and Barbosa-Silva [
7
] emphasize that interventions for gender equality
should be multilevel and target systemic sexist structures, such as the gender norms
and stereotypes that contribute to perpetuating women’s main and naturalized role in
reproduction, nurturing, and child rearing. When transposing these recommendations
to motherhood and career, they would include actions at the interpersonal level, such as
discussing the desired number and spacing of children with a partner, how to share and
balance family priorities, and the impacts of postponing pregnancies in favor of a career—a
dilemma so familiar for women but so unknown to men.
Although not clearly identified in the reviewed literature, we also highlight the im-
portance of adopting an intersectional perspective, such that identity markers (e.g., race,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status) and the specific conditions of mothers
(e.g., number and age of the children, marital status, and support network availability) are
considered. Therefore, we should be aware of interventions that imply we need to “fix”
women [
61
]; instead, interventions should aim to address the broader societal structures by
changing workplace and government policies, culture, and practices.
7.2.2. Interventions to Restructure How We See Motherhood and Leadership
Interventions should challenge traditional gender norms and lead to a cultural shift
that redefines societal perceptions of motherhood and leadership. It is important to cele-
brate the diverse roles women can occupy, recognizing they can be whatever they want—
including leaders. To make this possible, we need to tackle stereotypical and unreasonable
views of what constitutes a “good” mother and a “successful” leader.
Valuing care work and promoting an equitable division of family duties is essential,
as it contributes to contesting the notion that women should be the primary caregivers.
This also implies recognizing the socioeconomic significance, effort, and skills involved in
taking care of children and elderly people [
62
]. Although the following interventions do
not exhaust the needs and barriers faced by mothers in their careers, the combined efforts
of individuals, organizations, and governments are necessary to tackle some of the unequal
structures that still hinder women’s decisions professionally and personally.
It Takes a Village to Raise a Child
Overall, cultivating connections and counting on the support of other people is es-
sential for creating an environment where mothers feel acknowledged and empowered
while also respecting their multifaceted identities. Several articles in our sample, e.g.,

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 10 of 17
references [
44
,
58
], indicated the support of family and friends as a key enabler for mother’s
career progression.
Therefore, career arrangements that allow for the equal sharing of family responsibili-
ties with spouses is a must, and it is important for couples to have open communication,
outlining responsibilities and expectations with a clear understanding of each partner’s
responsibilities, as highlighted by part of the reviewed articles, e.g., references [
36
,
37
].
Additionally, we propose that having immediate family members (such as parents, siblings,
or friends) close by and adding to the support network also represent meaningful boosters
to women’s career advancement. Such community and family support is especially critical
for the career progression of single mothers.
The Importance of Women Helping Other Women
Based on the findings of Bowyer et al. [
30
] and Eren [
36
], we propose that interventions
involving role models may be especially helpful, as getting to know other stories could sup-
port women in navigating the duality of work and motherhood when exploring different
career paths. Networking is also important, and it can be done by actively engaging with
other parents (within or outside the workplace) to build a peer support network to share
experiences and career and family related advice. Within the workplace, this network may
be an important source of feedback for mothers regarding their skills and contributions,
since they may show a tendency toward understatement and poor self-assessment, as
shown by Schueller-Weidekamm and Kautzky-Willer’s results [58].
Schueller-Weidekamm and Kautzky-Willer [
58
] and Kristensen et al. [
63
] propose that
organizations can also invest in mentorship programs, succession planning, or leadership
programs that promote female talent and emphasize collaborative leadership styles, chal-
lenging the traditional views of what makes a good leader. For best practices, in addition
to providing instrumental and psychosocial support for mothers through mentoring, work-
places can stimulate formal women’s platforms and networks to foster connection and
sharing experiences [44,55].
Focusing on Workplace Arrangements Makes a Difference
Regarding organizational interventions, they need to go beyond the usual “leave”
policies and also provide “return” and “stay” policies; an approach that is often underesti-
mated. In addition to extended parental leaves (which are indeed important), organizations
should also provide a safe environment to which women would like to return, rather than
a work structure that maintains the status quo and penalizes them for trying to balance
family responsibilities and a career. One way to achieve equality for mothers is to create
opportunities for them to continue working while also raising their children, enabling a
real integration between work and family, which requires profound changes in workplace
practices [48,64].
Therefore, organizations should focus on flexible policies and work arrangements
in response to the changing family circumstances of their employees, such as adjusting
working hours, offering remote work options, or avoiding planned meetings late at night.
They could also enable job redesigns and temporarily restructure the roles of pregnant
women or new mothers by assigning them administrative work and less travel, as suggested
by Whittington [28].
Based on the common negative impacts identified in the reviewed articles, we propose
that inclusive events and activities, child-friendly spaces, and breastfeeding rooms are
other good initiatives to promote a more children-friendly work environment. Maternity
leave is one of the main reasons for women’s career breaks and may be a “burden” to
mothers according to Maxwell et al. [
59
], while fathers often continue to work and advance
professionally regardless of their family situation. Therefore, parental leave should be
equally shared, allowing families enough time to bond with newborns and achieve a
more equitable distribution of caregiving responsibilities. Organizations can facilitate this
by encouraging and supporting men to participate equally in caring roles by reframing

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 11 of 17
caregiving in ways that facilitate agentic goals and normalize men’s participation in these
roles [
65
]. Male managers and leaders who role model equal parenting may also help
to achieve these aims. Organizational and governmental policy that introduces a well-
paid, nontransferable “use it or lose it” policy for parental leave of fathers and secondary
caregivers may also help to normalize men’s equal participation in caregiving [
66
], as well
as initiatives that address men’s own gender role attitudes and biases [67].
Flexible work arrangements should also be combined with family-friendly benefits,
like extended parental leave, on-site childcare facilities, and the possibility of taking days
off for caregiving reasons. Considering the risk of losing a position while taking parental
leave, organizational policies could regulate the hiring of substitutes to replace workers, as
well as structured return programs (with phased return schedules, mentorship, training,
and reintegration support) for mothers, as proposed by Bowyer et al. [
30
] and Halrynjo
and Mangset [50].
Building a Supportive Organizational Culture for Mothers
Organizations need to build a supportive work culture that values work–life balance,
diverse identities, personal well-being, and cultivates positive attitudes toward mothers
and caregivers of any gender. We suggest that this could be done by inviting mothers and
caregivers returning from parental leave to share their experiences, recognizing soft skills
gained in parenthood and guardianship and encouraging leaders to openly express support
for employees’ family commitments, explicitly manifesting how these responsibilities are
known and valued [59,68].
We recommend structured anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies with
anonymous reporting systems, as these are pivotal to foster transparency and accountability,
building a safer work environment for women in response to the motherhood penalty
identified by Härkönen et al. [
60
] and Benard and Correll [
1
]. These policies could also
be followed by performance evaluations relative to opportunity, since negative views
towards mothers are commonly reflected in lower salaries and reduced advancement
opportunities, as shown by Bear and Glick [
46
] and Kristensen et al. [
63
]. While implicit bias
training may raise awareness of gender stereotypes that affect the perception of mothers,
considerate evaluation practices can help reduce inequities in salaries, performance reviews,
promotions, and recognition.
We emphasize that performance evaluation practices need to be carefully planned.
Ignoring caregiving status by evaluating mothers based only on their performance increases
inequalities and preserves disproportional systemic challenges. Considering that mothers
are often primarily responsible for domestic labor, face more career interruptions, have re-
duced work hours or double-shifts, and deviate from traditional career paths, performance
assessments should take such factors into account and use specific metrics for mothers
based on their context, responsibilities, and challenges while also recognizing the skills and
experiences gained through caregiving [50].
These initiatives can be complemented by a more collaborative approach to work.
Cross-training programs within teams, collective resources, and collaboration platforms
could enable the sharing of experiences and foster a more proportional distribution of
demands, responsibilities, and rewards, as proposed by Kibelloh and Bao [
69
] and Halrynjo
and Mangset [
50
]. This could facilitate transitions and reduce the risk of job loss during
parental leave, in addition to dismantling traditional hierarchies and promoting inclusivity.
However, this needs to be analyzed in terms of the nature of the job, as in some cases, limited
autonomy may be a barrier for mothers’ career advancement, according to Hancioglu and
Hartmann’s [70] findings.
Academic careers are especially challenging to new mothers, given the reward sys-
tem focused on productivity and publication records that place significant constraints on
their career progression. We urge a re-evaluation of the criteria for recognition, tenure,
and promotion, since academic mothers are commonly unable to comply with the same
standards as their male counterparts given their often disproportionate caregiving and

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 12 of 17
domestic responsibilities compared to their male counterparts. Therefore, institutions
should promote fairness in the evaluation process and rethink the role of productivity
with employees’ caregiving responsibilities in mind. This can be accomplished by accom-
modating interrupted publication records, extending evaluation periods, or recognizing
diverse forms of scholarly outputs other than publications, such as data sharing, teaching,
collaborative projects, and community-based interventions [30,36].
More generally, each organization should analyze the specific conditions of its employ-
ees, since women with dependent children are not a homogeneous group (e.g., number and
age of children are related to different career outcomes [
33
,
70
]). This follows Oliveira-Silva
and Barbosa-Silva’s [
7
] recommendations for tailored interventions targeting audience-
specific needs and characteristics.
The Role of Childcare-Related Government Legislation
The economic costs associated with having children are one of the main difficulties
faced by mothers, especially single mothers and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Therefore, governments need to structure legislation to guarantee mothers’ rights, alleviat-
ing the challenges associated with childcare. This could be done by providing affordable,
reliable, and accessible childcare services, or by offering tax credits for childcare expenses.
Financial constraints not only increase the likelihood of withdrawal from the labor
force but also compel mothers to take jobs of lower status and salaries, which directly
hinder their career, as stated by Ma [
56
] and Hancioglu and Hartmann [
70
]. Therefore, we
emphasize the need for social safety nets and government programs that offer financial
support, healthcare, food security, and housing assistance for low-income families, added
to reemployment programs. These are especially important during economic crises, as
shown by Staniscuaski et al. [44] and Cha [71].
Legislation that guarantees rights for part-time and short-term contract workers is
also important, considering that many women from lower social classes are obliged to
invest in such career arrangements after motherhood [
33
,
36
]. To ensure poorer mothers are
not being even more marginalized, we recommend governmental interventions to focus
on providing protections against job loss, as well as fair treatment and mechanisms for
transitioning contract workers to permanent roles. Another important issue that should be
government-level regulated is breastfeeding, with public policies including the creation
of lactation spaces [
32
,
72
]. Legislation for equal pay is also important to guarantee that
mothers are being fairly compensated for their work and to avoid deepening the gender
pay gap, as shown by Bear and Glick [46].
Education plays a crucial role in addressing motherhood penalties, so providing
specific training programs and learning resources are important strategies to improve
mothers’ employability, keep them updated on industry trends, and facilitate their return
after career breaks, as proposed by Ma [
56
] and Härkönen et al. [
60
]. However, we highlight
that education should not target everybody—not only mothers—especially when involving
awareness campaigns that challenge stigmas associated with motherhood. This could be
achieved by sharing and underscoring successful stories of working mothers, bringing
attention to the systemic barriers and stereotypes faced by them, or communicating the
benefits associated with family-friendly policies. By educating people about the challenges
and contributions of mothers, it is possible to encourage empathy and support from
colleagues, employers, and society in general [48,51].
Work in academia should also be targeted by national initiatives that reshape evalua-
tion metrics, recognize outputs such as teaching and service contributions, provide funding
for hiring research assistance (which can help mothers with the academic workload), post-
pone deadlines, and provide flexible work arrangements to mothers, as suggested by
Maxwell et al. [
59
] and Eren [
36
]. Additionally, public funding agencies need to finance and
support research on gender biases or working mothers’ experiences as means of obtaining
evidence to inform public policies and legislations.

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 13 of 17
8. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
This review is limited by its exclusive analysis of English-language papers, potentially
excluding valuable studies in other languages and introducing cultural bias by emphasizing
perspectives from English-speaking countries and scholars. Additionally, the 10-year
timeframe chosen for analysis, while intending to offer a contemporary perspective, does
not allow us to examine historical shifts in workplace dynamics and societal attitudes
toward motherhood. Future investigations might consider analyzing longer-term trends,
exploring the influence of time, changes in media representations, and the impact of
different generations on the career trajectories of mothers. This approach could provide a
more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between societal changes and the
career experiences of mothers.
Despite its methodological limitations, this scoping review evidenced important gaps
in the scholarship about motherhood and career progression. The lack of intersectionality
must be stressed as a relevant characteristic of the reviewed literature. Some studies did not
provide basic intersectional information about their participants, such as socioeconomic
status, race, ethnicity, class, gender identity, sexuality, or marital status, in the main analysis.
Not surprisingly, the reviewed literature presented a predominantly heteronormative
perspective about motherhood by overlooking the experience of mothers with diverse
sexual orientations or gender identities. Furthermore, the presence of a (typically male)
partner was often presumed, leaving the experiences of single mothers under-examined.
An additional gap was the lack of studies considering the broader macroeconomic context
in which the participant mothers were situated. This is essential, as economic crises are
directly related to job availability, salaries, and advancement opportunities, such that
financial struggles can also stimulate mothers to return earlier from maternity leave and
work for long hours.
Accessing sample characteristics, especially with regard to if and how those from
minoritized groups are included, is crucial to design appropriate interventions and unfold
theoretical implications. Considering the intersectionalities different women face around
the world is mandatory, especially because career progression may change significantly
depending on the mother’s background.
An important aspect that future studies should consider is the representation of women
among the authors of studies about motherhood. It would be insightful, for example, to
investigate how many authors self-identify as women. This could shed light on how
much women, more than men, are engaging with and contributing to the discussion and
investigation of this topic. Understanding the publishing experiences of researchers who
study topics related to motherhood and gender inequality could provide insights into the
biases and obstacles that exist within academic publishing systems. Additionally, it could
prompt further examination of the barriers and challenges that women face in academic
publishing, especially in fields where the motherhood penalty is particularly pronounced.
Therefore, future research on motherhood and career should be more intersectional
and inclusive, with a greater emphasis on contextual and structural inequalities when
addressing interventions for career progression. Diverse family configurations (e.g., lesbian
and gay couples, single mothers, non-monogamous families) and multiple cultural and
social factors must be considered as often as possible, as the sexual division of labor can
vary depending on cultural values and how mothers are socially perceived.
9. Conclusions
This scoping review provided a deeper understanding of how the literature has inves-
tigated the impact of motherhood on women’s career progression. Most of the identified
impacts were negative and corroborated the motherhood penalty, with concrete barriers to
career advancement and leadership. On the other hand, we also identified positive aspects
of the relationship between motherhood and career outcomes, usually related to mothers
developing more interpersonal, time management, and problem-solving skills.

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 14 of 17
Despite our attempt to analyze the literature regarding career progression instead of
leadership, we were still confronted with an androcentric view. Even the career progress
notion was shown to be highly influenced by a typical masculine model of work. In
addition to perpetuating a narrow view of what it means to achieve career progression,
this fosters gender stereotypes and limits the understanding of diverse career trajectories,
especially those pursued by women, working mothers, and other minorities.
Considering how attitudes, feelings, and behaviors resulting from motherhood are
mainly caused by situations which women have little control over and those that result
from the interaction between work responsibilities and childcare availability, the role of
interventions is essential. However, they must focus not only on micro-level actions but also
cover the multifaceted dimensions that affect motherhood and care work in workplaces and
societies. Therefore, this scoping review provided an updated perspective on a stubborn
issue, offering practical insights to encompass its complexities and contribute to a more
inclusive and structural understanding of the career trajectories of working mothers.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bs14040275/s1. Additional data and files were uploaded as
“Supplementary Files” during the manuscript submission process: Table S1. Impact of motherhood
on career progression; Table S2. Career interventions for mothers’ career progress. References [
73
–
84
]
are cited in the supplementary materials.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: A.J.C.T., L.B.-S. and L.C.O.-S.; methodology, A.J.C.T., L.B.-
S. and L.C.O.-S.; software, A.J.C.T., L.B.-S. and U.C.R.G.; validation, A.J.C.T., L.B.-S. and U.C.R.G.;
formal analysis, A.J.C.T., L.B.-S., O.P.P.M. and U.C.R.G.; investigation, A.J.C.T., L.B.-S., O.P.P.M.
and U.C.R.G.; resources, A.J.C.T., L.B.-S., O.P.P.M. and U.C.R.G.; data curation, A.J.C.T., L.B.-S. and
O.P.P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J.C.T., L.B.-S., O.P.P.M. and U.C.R.G.; writing—review
and editing, L.C.O.-S., A.N.F. and M.K.R.; visualization, L.C.O.-S., A.N.F. and M.K.R.; supervision,
L.C.O.-S.; project administration, L.C.O.-S.; funding acquisition, L.C.O.-S. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Develop-
ment (CNPq) in Brazil [grant numbers 406604/2021-5 and 401131/2022-0].
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Correll, S.J.; Bernard, S.; Paik, I. Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? Am. J. Sociol. 2007,112, 1297–1338. Available online:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/511799 (accessed on 22 March 2024). [CrossRef]
2.
Burgess, N. The motherhood penalty: How gender and parental status influence judgements of job-related competence and
organizational commitment. Semin. Res. Pap. Ser. 2013,32, 1–11. Available online: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lrc_paper_
series/32/ (accessed on 22 March 2024).
3.
Kim, A.; Hahn, Y. The motherhood effect on labour market outcomes: Evidence from South Korea. Asian-Pac. Econ. Lit. 2022,36,
71–88. [CrossRef]
4.
Martins, G.D.F.; Leal, C.L.; Schmidt, B.; Piccinini, C.A. Motherhood and work: Experience of women with established careers.
Trends Psychol. 2019,27, 69–84. [CrossRef]
5.
Archibong, U.; McIntosh, B.; Donaghy, L. Time to make healthcare professions more accessible to women with children. Br. J.
Healthc. Manag. 2020,26, 56–57. [CrossRef]
6.
Kleven, H.; Landais, C.; Leite-Mariante, G. NBER The Child Penalty Atlas; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA; National Bureau of
Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023.
7.
Oliveira-Silva, L.C.; Barbosa-Silva, L. Career Interventions for Promoting Gender Equality: Methodological Aspects. Paidéia 2023,
33, e3320. [CrossRef]
8.
Schein, V.E. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 1973,57,
95–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Heilman, M.E.; Okimoto, T.G. Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008,93, 189–198.
[CrossRef]
10. Eagly, A.H.; Karau, S.J. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 2022,109, 573. [CrossRef]
11.
Valiquette-Tessier, S.-C.; Gosselin, J.; Young, M.; Thomassin, K. A Literature Review of Cultural Stereotypes Associated with
Motherhood and Fatherhood. Marriage Fam. Rev. 2019,55, 299–329. [CrossRef]

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 15 of 17
12.
Arena, D.F., Jr.; Volpone, S.D.; Jones, K.P. Maternity bias in the workplace: A systematic review. J. Manag. 2022,49, 52–84.
[CrossRef]
13.
Oliveira-Silva, L.C.; Lopes, A.B.M. Mulheres e Liderança: Barreiras, estereótipos e estratégias frente a uma visão androcêntrica.
In Contrassensos Contemporâneos do Mundo do Trabalho; Criação Editora: Aracaju, Brazil, 2021; Volume 1. Available on-
line: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=DaffLBIAAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80
&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=DaffLBIAAAAJ:isC4tDSrTZIC (accessed on 22 March 2024).
14.
Williams, J. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do about It; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA,
2001.
15.
Acker, J. Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities. Equal. Divers. Incl. 2012,31, 214–224.
[CrossRef]
16. Carbajal, J. Women and Work: Ascending to Leadership Positions. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2018,28, 12–27. [CrossRef]
17.
Hryniewicz, L.G.C.; Vianna, M.A. Women and leadership: Obstacles and gender expectations in managerial positions. Cad.
EBAPE 2018,16, 331–344. [CrossRef]
18.
Zhao, Y.; Cooklin, A.R.; Richardson, A.; Strazdins, L.; Butterworth, P.; Leach, L.S. Parents’ shift work in connection with
work–family conflict and mental health: Examining the pathways for mothers and fathers. J. Fam. Issues 2021,42, 445–473.
[CrossRef]
19.
Aarntzen, L.; Derks, B.; van Steenbergen, E.; Ryan, M.K.; van der Lippe, T. A straightjacket of work-family guilt: An interview
and diary study on consequence of mothers’ work-family guilt. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019,115, 103336. [CrossRef]
20.
Apostu, I. Female management- between motherhood and career. Ecoforum 2017,6. Available online: http://ecoforumjournal.ro/
index.php/eco/article/view/570 (accessed on 22 March 2024).
21.
Cheung, H.K.; Anderson, A.J.; King, E.B.; Mahabir, B.; Warner, K.; Jones, K.P. Beyond the baby bump: Subtle discrimination
against working mothers in the hiring process. J. Bus. Psychol. 2022,37, 1181–1198. [CrossRef]
22.
Guthridge, M.; Kirkman, M.; Penovic, T.; Giummarra, M.J. Promoting gender equality: A systematic review of interventions. Soc.
Justice Res. 2022,35, 318–343. [CrossRef]
23.
Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005,8, 19–32.
[CrossRef]
24.
Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.;
et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018,169, 467–473.
[CrossRef]
25.
McGowan, J.; Sampson, M.; Salzwedel, D.M.; Cogo, E.; Foerster, V.; Lefebvre, C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies:
2015 guideline statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016,75, 40–46. [CrossRef]
26. Short, J. The art of writing a review article. J. Manag. 2009,35, 1312–1317. [CrossRef]
27.
Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev.
2016,5, 210. [CrossRef]
28. Whittington, A. Outdoor careers and motherhood. J. Exp. Educ. 2019,42, 79–92. [CrossRef]
29.
Lucifora, C.; Meurs, D.; Villar, E. The “mommy track” in the workplace. Evidence from a large French firm. Labour Econ. 2021,72,
102035. [CrossRef]
30.
Bowyer, D.; Deitz, M.; Jamison, A.; Taylor, C.E.; Gyengesi, E.; Ross, J.; Dune, T. Academic mothers, professional identity and
COVID-19: Feminist reflections on career cycles, progression and practice. Gend. Work Organ. 2022,29, 309–341. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
31.
Hardoy, I.; Schøne, P.; Østbakken, K.M. Children and the gender gap in management. Labour Econ. 2017,47, 124–137. [CrossRef]
32. Kim, S.; Zhang, C.; Yoshikawa, H.; Fong, V.L.; Way, N.; Chen, X.; Ke, X. Family Duties and Job Flexibility: Tradeoffs for Chinese
Urban, Educated Mothers with Toddlers. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 2022,53, 25–47. Available online: https://www.muse.jhu.edu/
article/852702 (accessed on 22 March 2024). [CrossRef]
33.
McIntosh, B.; McQuais, R.; Munro, A.; Dabir-Alai, P. Motherhood and its impact on career progression. Gend. Manag. 2012,27,
346–364. [CrossRef]
34.
Toyibah, D. Motherhood and academic careers in Indonesia. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2019,27, 1753–1767. Available online:
https://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/handle/123456789/54562 (accessed on 22 March 2024).
35.
Clark, S.; McGrane, A.; Boyle, N.; Joksimovic, N.; Burke, L.; Rock, N.; O’ Sullivan, K. “You’re a teacher you’re a mother, you’re a
worker”: Gender inequality during COVID-19 in Ireland. Gend. Work Organ. 2021,28, 1352–1362. [CrossRef]
36.
Eren, E. Never the right time: Maternity planning alongside a science career in academia. J. Gend. Stud. 2022,31, 136–147.
[CrossRef]
37.
Mirick, R.G.; Wladkowski, S.P. Women’s Experiences with Parenting during Doctoral Education: Impact on Career Trajectory. Int.
J. Dr. Stud. 2020,15, 89–110. [CrossRef]
38.
Miliopoulou, G.Z.; Kapareliotis, I. The toll of success: Female leaders in the “women-friendly” Greek advertising agencies. Gend.
Work Organ. 2021,28, 1741–1765. [CrossRef]
39.
Borrueco, M.; Torregrossa, M.; Pallarès, S.; Vitali, F.; Ramis, Y. Women coaches at top level: Looking back through the maze. Int. J.
Sports Sci. Coach. 2023,18, 327–338. [CrossRef]

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 16 of 17
40.
Kahn, J.R.; García-Manglano, J.; Bianchi, S.M. The motherhood penalty at midlife: Long-term effects of children on women’s
careers. J. Marriage Fam. 2014,76, 56–72. [CrossRef]
41.
Herman, C.; Lewis, S. Entitled to a sustainable career? Motherhood in science, engineering, and technology. J. Soc. Issues 2012,68,
767–789. [CrossRef]
42.
Herman, C.; Lewis, S.; Humbert, A.L. Women Scientists and Engineers in European Companies: Putting Motherhood under the
Microscope. Gend. Work Organ. 2012,20, 467–478. [CrossRef]
43.
Magnusson, C. Why is there a gender wage gap according to occupational prestige?: An analysis of the gender wage gap by
occupational prestige and family obligations in Sweden. Acta Sociol. 2010,53, 99–117. [CrossRef]
44.
Staniscuaski, F.; Kmetzsch, L.; Soletti, R.C.; Reichert, F.; Zandonà, E.; Ludwig, Z.M.; Lima, E.F.; Neumann, A.; Schwartz, I.V.D.;
Mello-Carpes, P.B.; et al. Gender, race and parenthood impact academic productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: From
survey to action. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 663252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
El-Far, M.T.; Sabella, A.R.; Vershinina, N.A. “Stuck in the middle of what?”: The pursuit of academic careers by mothers and
non-mothers in higher education institutions in occupied Palestine. High. Educ. 2021,81, 685–705. [CrossRef]
46.
Bear, J.B.; Glick, P. Breadwinner bonus and caregiver penalty in workplace rewards for men and women. Soc. Psychol. Personal.
Sci. 2017,8, 780–788. [CrossRef]
47.
Nordberg, T.H. Managers’ views on employees’ parental leave: Problems and solutions within different institutional logics. Acta
Sociol. 2019,62, 81–95. [CrossRef]
48. Benard, S.; Correll, S.J. Normative discrimination and the motherhood penalty. Gend. Soc. 2010,24, 616–646. [CrossRef]
49.
Frühwirth-Schnatter, S.; Pamminger, C.; Weber, A.; Winter-Ebmer, R. Mothers’ long-run career patterns after first birth. J. R. Stat.
Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 2016,179, 707–725. [CrossRef]
50.
Halrynjo, S.; Mangset, M. Parental leave vs. competition for clients: Motherhood penalty in competitive work environments. J.
Fam. Res. 2022,34, 932–957. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3047020 (accessed on 22 March 2024). [CrossRef]
51.
Thébaud, S.; Taylor, C.J. The Specter of Motherhood: Culture and the Production of Gendered Career Aspirations in Science and
Engineering. Gend. Soc. 2021,35, 395–421. [CrossRef]
52.
Schlehofer, M. Practicing what we teach? An autobiographical reflection on navigating academia as a single mother. J. Community
Psychol. 2012,40, 112–128. [CrossRef]
53.
Samtleben, C.; Bringmann, J.; Bünning, M.; Hipp, L. What helps and what hinders? Exploring the role of workplace characteristics
for parental leave use and its career consequences. Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 270. [CrossRef]
54.
Rudman, L.A.; Moss-Racusin, C.A.; Phelan, J.E.; Nauts, S. Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy
motivates prejudice against female leaders. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012,48, 165–179. [CrossRef]
55.
Ma, E.; Kim, M.S.; Yang, W.; Wu, L.; Xu, S.T. On the bright side of motherhood—A mixed method enquiry. Ann. Tour. Res. 2022,
92, 103350. [CrossRef]
56.
Ma, L. Economic crisis and women’s labor force return after childbirth: Evidence from South Korea. Demogr. Res. 2014,31,
511–552. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26350072 (accessed on 22 March 2024). [CrossRef]
57.
Falco, L.D.; Summers, J.J. Improving career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy in high school girls: Evaluation of an
intervention. J. Career Dev. 2019,46, 62–76. [CrossRef]
58.
Schueller-Weidekamm, C.; Kautzky-Willer, A. Challenges of work–life balance for women physicians/mothers working in
leadership positions. Gend. Med. 2012,9, 244–250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Maxwell, N.; Connolly, L.; NíLaoire, C. Informality, Emotion and Gendered Career paths: The Hidden Toll of Maternity Leave on
Female Academics and Researchers. Gend. Work Organ. 2018,26, 140–157. [CrossRef]
60.
Härkönen, J.; Manzoni, A.; Bihagen, E. Gender inequalities in occupational prestige across the working life: An analysis of the
careers of West Germans and Swedes born from the 1920s to the 1970s. Adv. Life Course Res. 2016,29, 41–51. [CrossRef]
61.
Ryan, M.K.; Morgenroth, T. Why we should stop trying to fix women: How context shapes and constrains women’s career
trajectories. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2024,75, 555–572. [CrossRef]
62.
Lokot, M.; Bhatia, A. Unequal and invisible: A feminist political economy approach to valuing women’s care labor in the
COVID-19 response. Front. Sociol. 2020,5, 588279. [CrossRef]
63.
Kristensen, R.; Kent, P.; Warming-Rasmussen, B.; Windsor, C. Do Mother and Father Auditors Have Equal Prospects for Career
Advancement? Int. J. Audit. 2017,21, 1–10. [CrossRef]
64. Stone, P. Opting out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2007.
65.
Croft, A.; Schmader, T.; Block, K. An Underexamined Inequality: Cultural and Psychological Barriers to Men’s Engagement With
Communal Roles. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2015,19, 343–370. [CrossRef]
66.
Castro-García, C.; Pazos-Moran, M. Parental Leave Policy and Gender Equality in Europe. Fem. Econ. 2016,22, 51–73. [CrossRef]
67.
Olsson MI, T.; van Grootel, S.; Block, K.; Schuster, C.; Meeussen, L.; Van Laar, C.; Schmader, T.; Croft, A.; Sun, M.S.; Ainsaar, M.;
et al. Gender Gap in Parental Leave Intentions: Evidence from 37 Countries. Political Psychol. 2023,44, 1163–1192. [CrossRef]
68.
Brown, L. The relationship between motherhood and professional advancement: Perceptions versus reality. Empl. Relat. 2010,32,
470–494. [CrossRef]
69.
Kibelloh, M.; Bao, Y. Can online MBA programmes allow professional working mothers to balance work, family, and career
progression? A case study in China. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2014,23, 249–259. [CrossRef]

Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 275 17 of 17
70.
Hancioglu, M.; Hartmann, B. What makes single mothers expand or reduce employment? J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2014,35, 27–39.
[CrossRef]
71.
Cha, Y. Job Mobility and the Great Recession: Wage Consequences by Gender and Parenhood. Sociol. Sci. 2014,1, 159–177.
[CrossRef]
72.
King, E.L.; Myint, H.; Gardner, T.R.; Mitchell, M.R.; Beitz, K.A. Gender Disparities in Active Duty Air Force Parents’ Childcare
Access: Pre-Pandemic Costs, Utilization, and Career Impacts. Armed Forces Soc. 2023,49, 776–797. [CrossRef]
73.
Abele, A.E.; Spurk, D. The dual impact of gender and the influence of timing of parenthood on men’s and women’s career
development: Longitudinal findings. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2011,35, 225–232. [CrossRef]
74.
Abendroth, A.-K.; Huffman, M.L.; Treas, J. The parity penalty in life course perspective: Motherhood and occupational status in
13 European countries. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2014,79, 993–1014. [CrossRef]
75.
Evertsson, M.; Grunow, D. Women’s work interruptions and career prospects in Germany and Sweden. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy
2012,32, 561–575. [CrossRef]
76.
Hsu, C.H. Parity-specific motherhood penalties: Long-term impacts of childbirth on women’s earnings in Japan. Adv. Life Course
Res. 2021,50, 100435. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77.
Kelley, H.; Galbraith, Q.; Strong, J. Working moms: Motherhood penalty or motherhood return? J. Acad. Librariansh. 2020,46,
102075. [CrossRef]
78.
Lau, V.W.Y.; Scott, V.L.; Warren, M.A.; Bligh, M.C. Moving from problems to solutions: A review of gender equality interventions
at work using an ecological systems approach. J. Organ. Behav. 2023,44, 399–419. [CrossRef]
79.
Luekemann, L.; Abendroth, A.-K. Women in the German Workplace: What Facilitates or Constrains Their Claims-Making for
Career Advancement? Soc. Sci. 2018,7, 214. [CrossRef]
80.
Misra, J.; Lundquist, J.H.; Templer, A. Gender, work time, and care responsibilities among faculty. Sociol. Forum 2012,27, 300–323.
[CrossRef]
81.
Morgenroth, T.; Ryan, M.K.; Sønderlund, A.L. Think Manager–Think Parent? Investigating the fatherhood advantage and the
motherhood penalty using the Think Manager–Think Male paradigm. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2021,51, 237–247. [CrossRef]
82.
Reichman, N.; Sterling, J. Parenthood status and compensation in law practice. Indiana J. Glob. Leg. Stud. 2013,20, 1203–1222.
[CrossRef]
83. Zheng, X.; Yuan, H.; Ni, C. How parenthood contributes to gender gaps in academia. eLife 2022, 11. [CrossRef]
84.
Ziegler, Y.; Graml, R.; Khachatryan, K.; Uli, V. Working mothers in East and West Germany: A cluster analysis using a three-stage
approach. Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2022,37, 423–437. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.