gender roles in the workplace essay

Women in the Workplace 2023

Women in the Workplace

This is the ninth year of the Women in the Workplace report. Conducted in partnership with LeanIn.Org , this effort is the largest study of women in corporate America and Canada. This year, we collected information from 276 participating organizations employing more than ten million people. At these organizations, we surveyed more than 27,000 employees and 270 senior HR leaders, who shared insights on their policies and practices. The report provides an intersectional look at the specific biases and barriers faced by Asian, Black, Latina, and LGBTQ+ women and women with disabilities.

About the authors

This year’s research reveals some hard-fought gains at the top, with women’s representation in the C-suite at the highest it has ever been. However, with lagging progress in the middle of the pipeline—and a persistent underrepresentation of women of color 1 Women of color include women who are Asian, Black, Latina, Middle Eastern, mixed race, Native American/American Indian/Indigenous/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Due to small sample sizes for other racial and ethnic groups, reported findings on individual racial and ethnic groups are restricted to Asian women, Black women, and Latinas. —true parity remains painfully out of reach.

The survey debunks four myths about women’s workplace experiences  and career advancement. A few of these myths cover old ground, but given the notable lack of progress, they warrant repeating. These include women’s career ambitions, the greatest barrier to their ascent to senior leadership, the effect and extent of microaggressions in the workplace, and women’s appetite for flexible work. We hope highlighting these myths will help companies find a path forward that casts aside outdated thinking once and for all and accelerates progress for women.

The rest of this article summarizes the main findings from the Women in the Workplace 2023 report and provides clear solutions that organizations can implement to make meaningful progress toward gender equality.

State of the pipeline

Over the past nine years, women—and especially women of color—have remained underrepresented across the corporate pipeline (Exhibit 1). However, we see a growing bright spot in senior leadership. Since 2015, the number of women in the C-suite has increased from 17 to 28 percent, and the representation of women at the vice president and senior vice president levels has also improved significantly.

These hard-earned gains are encouraging yet fragile: slow progress for women at the manager and director levels—representation has grown only three and four percentage points, respectively—creates a weak middle in the pipeline for employees who represent the vast majority of women in corporate America. And the “Great Breakup” trend we discovered in last year’s survey  continues for women at the director level, the group next in line for senior-leadership positions. That is, director-level women are leaving at a higher rate than in past years—and at a notably higher rate than men at the same level. As a result of these two dynamics, there are fewer women in line for top positions.

To view previous reports, please visit the Women in the Workplace archive

Moreover, progress for women of color is lagging behind their peers’ progress. At nearly every step in the pipeline, the representation of women of color falls relative to White women and men of the same race and ethnicity. Until companies address this inequity head-on, women of color will remain severely underrepresented in leadership positions—and mostly absent from the C-suite.

“It’s disheartening to be part of an organization for as many years as I have been and still not see a person like me in senior leadership. Until I see somebody like me in the C-suite, I’m never going to really feel like I belong.”

—Latina, manager, former executive director

Four myths about the state of women at work

This year’s survey reveals the truth about four common myths related to women in the workplace.

Myth: Women are becoming less ambitious Reality: Women are more ambitious than before the pandemic—and flexibility is fueling that ambition

At every stage of the pipeline, women are as committed to their careers and as interested in being promoted as men. Women and men at the director level—when the C-suite is in closer view—are also equally interested in senior-leadership roles. And young women are especially ambitious. Nine in ten women under the age of 30 want to be promoted to the next level, and three in four aspire to become senior leaders.

Women represent roughly one in four C-suite leaders, and women of color just one in 16.

Moreover, the pandemic and increased flexibility did not dampen women’s ambitions. Roughly 80 percent of women want to be promoted to the next level, compared with 70 percent in 2019. And the same holds true for men. Women of color are even more ambitious than White women: 88 percent want to be promoted to the next level. Flexibility is allowing women to pursue their ambitions: overall, one in five women say flexibility has helped them stay in their job or avoid reducing their hours. A large number of women who work hybrid or remotely point to feeling less fatigued and burned out as a primary benefit. And a majority of women report having more focused time to get their work done when they work remotely.

The pandemic showed women that a new model of balancing work and life was possible. Now, few want to return to the way things were. Most women are taking more steps to prioritize their personal lives—but at no cost to their ambition. They remain just as committed to their careers and just as interested in advancing as women who aren’t taking more steps. These women are defying the outdated notion that work and life are incompatible, and that one comes at the expense of the other.

Myth: The biggest barrier to women’s advancement is the ‘glass ceiling’ Reality: The ‘broken rung’ is the greatest obstacle women face on the path to senior leadership

For the ninth consecutive year, women face their biggest hurdle at the first critical step up to manager. This year, for every 100 men promoted from entry level to manager, 87 women were promoted (Exhibit 2). And this gap is trending the wrong way for women of color: this year, 73 women of color were promoted to manager for every 100 men, down from 82 women of color last year. As a result of this “broken rung,” women fall behind and can’t catch up.

Progress for early-career Black women remains the furthest behind. After rising in 2020 and 2021 to a high of 96 Black women promoted for every 100 men—likely because of heightened focus across corporate America—Black women’s promotion rates have fallen to 2018 levels, with only 54 Black women promoted for every 100 men this year.

While companies are modestly increasing women’s representation at the top, doing so without addressing the broken rung offers only a temporary stopgap. Because of the gender disparity in early promotions, men end up holding 60 percent of manager-level positions in a typical company, while women occupy 40 percent. Since men significantly outnumber women, there are fewer women to promote to senior managers, and the number of women decreases at every subsequent level.

Myth: Microaggressions have a ‘micro’ impact Reality: Microaggressions have a large and lasting impact on women

Microaggressions are a form of everyday discrimination that is often rooted in bias. They include comments and actions—even subtle ones that are not overtly harmful—that demean or dismiss someone based on their gender, race, or other aspects of their identity. They signal disrespect, cause acute stress, and can negatively impact women’s careers and health.

Years of data show that women experience microaggressions at a significantly higher rate than men: they are twice as likely to be mistaken for someone junior and hear comments on their emotional state (Exhibit 3). For women with traditionally marginalized identities, these slights happen more often and are even more demeaning. As just one example, Asian and Black women are seven times more likely than White women to be confused with someone of the same race and ethnicity.

As a result, the workplace is a mental minefield for many women, particularly those with traditionally marginalized identities. Women who experience microaggressions are much less likely to feel psychologically safe, which makes it harder to take risks, propose new ideas, or raise concerns. The stakes feel just too high. On top of this, 78 percent of women who face microaggressions self-shield at work, or adjust the way they look or act in an effort to protect themselves. For example, many women code-switch—or tone down what they say or do—to try to blend in and avoid a negative reaction at work. Black women are more than twice as likely as women overall to code-switch. And LGBTQ+ women are 2.5 times as likely to feel pressure to change their appearance to be perceived as more professional. The stress caused by these dynamics cuts deep.

Women who experience microaggressions—and self-shield to deflect them—are three times more likely to think about quitting their jobs and four times more likely to almost always be burned out. By leaving microaggressions unchecked, companies miss out on everything women have to offer and risk losing talented employees.

“It’s like I have to act extra happy so I’m not looked at as bitter because I’m a Black woman. And a disabled Black woman at that. If someone says something offensive to me, I have to think about how to respond in a way that does not make me seem like an angry Black woman.”

—Black woman with a physical disability, entry-level role

Myth: It’s mostly women who want—and benefit from—flexible work Reality: Men and women see flexibility as a ‘top 3’ employee benefit and critical to their company’s success

Most employees say that opportunities to work remotely and have control over their schedules are top company benefits, second only to healthcare (Exhibit 4). Workplace flexibility even ranks above tried-and-true benefits such as parental leave and childcare.

As workplace flexibility transforms from a nice-to-have for some employees to a crucial benefit for most, women continue to value it more. This is likely because they still carry out a disproportionate amount of childcare and household work. Indeed, 38 percent of mothers with young children say that without workplace flexibility, they would have had to leave their company or reduce their work hours.

But it’s not just women or mothers who benefit: hybrid and remote work are delivering important benefits to most employees. Most women and men point to better work–life balance as a primary benefit of hybrid and remote work, and a majority cite less fatigue and burnout (Exhibit 5). And research shows that good work–life balance and low burnout are key to organizational success. Moreover, 83 percent of employees cite the ability to work more efficiently and productively as a primary benefit of working remotely. However, it’s worth noting companies see this differently: only half of HR leaders say employee productivity is a primary benefit of working remotely.

For women, hybrid or remote work is about a lot more than flexibility. When women work remotely, they face fewer microaggressions and have higher levels of psychological safety.

Employees who work on-site also see tangible benefits. A majority point to an easier time collaborating and a stronger personal connection to coworkers as the biggest benefits of working on-site—two factors central to employee well-being and effectiveness. However, the culture of on-site work may be falling short. While 77 percent of companies believe a strong organizational culture is a key benefit of on-site work, most employees disagree: only 39 percent of men and 34 percent of women who work on-site say a key benefit is feeling more connected to their organization’s culture.

Not to mention that men benefit disproportionately from on-site work: compared with women who work on-site, men are seven to nine percentage points more likely to be “in the know,” receive the mentorship and sponsorships they need, and have their accomplishments noticed and rewarded.

A majority of organizations have started to formalize their return-to-office policies, motivated by the perceived benefits of on-site work (Exhibit 6). As they do so, they will need to work to ensure everyone can equally reap the benefits of on-site work.

Recommendations for companies

As companies work to support and advance women, they should focus on five core areas:

• tracking outcomes for women’s representation
• empowering managers to be effective people leaders
• addressing microaggressions head-on
• unlocking the full potential of flexible work
• fixing the broken rung, once and for all

Sixty percent of companies have increased their financial and staffing investments in diversity, equity, and inclusion over the past year. And nearly three in four HR leaders say DEI is critical to their companies’ future success.

1. Track outcomes to improve women’s experience and progression

Tracking outcomes is critical to any successful business initiative. Most companies do this consistently when it comes to achieving their financial objectives, but few apply the same rigor to women’s advancement. Here are three steps to get started:

Measure employees’ outcomes and experiences—and use the data to fix trouble spots. Outcomes for drivers of women’s advancement include hiring, promotions, and attrition. Visibility into other metrics—such as participation in career development programs, performance ratings, and employee sentiments—that influence career progression is also important, and data should be collected with appropriate data privacy protections in place. Then, it’s critically important that companies mine their data for insights that will improve women’s experiences and create equal opportunities for advancement. Ultimately, data tracking is only valuable if it leads to organizational change.

Take an intersectional approach to outcome tracking. Tracking metrics by race and gender combined should be table stakes. Yet, even now, fewer than half of companies do this, and far fewer track data by other self-reported identifiers, such as LGBTQ+ identity. Without this level of visibility, the experiences and career progression of women with traditionally marginalized identities can go overlooked.

Share internal goals and metrics with employees. Awareness is a valuable tool for driving change—when employees are able to see opportunities and challenges, they’re more invested in being part of the solution. In addition, transparency with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals and metrics can send a powerful signal to employees with traditionally marginalized identities that they are supported within the organization.

2. Support and reward managers as key drivers of organizational change

Managers are on the front lines of employees’ experiences and central to driving organizational change. As companies more deeply invest in the culture of work, managers play an increasingly critical role in fostering DEI, ensuring employee well-being, and navigating the shift to flexible work. These are all important business priorities, but managers do not always get the direction and support they need to deliver on them. Here are three steps to get started:

Clarify managers’ priorities and reward results. Companies need to explicitly communicate to managers what is core to their roles and motivate them to take action. The most effective way to do this is to include responsibilities like career development, DEI, and employee well-being in managers’ job descriptions and performance reviews. Relatively few companies evaluate managers on metrics linked to people management. For example, although 61 percent of companies point to DEI as a top manager capability, only 28 percent of people managers say their company recognizes DEI in performance reviews. This discrepancy may partially explain why not enough employees say their manager treats DEI as a priority.

Equip managers with the skills they need to be successful. To effectively manage the new demands being placed on them, managers need ongoing education. This includes repeated, relevant, and high-quality training and nudges that emphasize specific examples of core concepts, as well as concrete actions that managers can incorporate into their daily practices. Companies should adopt an “often and varied” approach to training and upskilling and create regular opportunities for coaching so that managers can continue to build the awareness and capabilities they need to be effective.

Make sure managers have the time and support to get it right. It requires significant intentionality and follow-through to be a good people and culture leader, and this is particularly true when it comes to fostering DEI. Companies need to make sure their managers have the time and resources to do these aspects of their job well. Additionally, companies should put policies and systems in place to make managers’ jobs easier.

3. Take steps to put an end to microaggressions

Microaggressions are pervasive, harmful to the employees who experience them, and result in missed ideas and lost talent. Companies need to tackle microaggressions head-on. Here are three steps to get started:

Make clear that microaggressions are not acceptable. To raise employee awareness and set the right tone, it’s crucial that senior leaders communicate that microaggressions and disrespectful behavior of any kind are not welcome. Companies can help with this by developing a code of conduct that articulates what supportive and respectful behavior looks like—as well as what’s unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

Teach employees to avoid and challenge microaggressions. Employees often don’t recognize microaggressions, let alone know what to say or do to be helpful. That’s why it’s so important that companies have employees participate in high-quality bias and allyship training and receive periodic refreshers to keep key learnings top of mind.

Create a culture where it’s normal to surface microaggressions. It’s important for companies to foster a culture that encourages employees to speak up when they see microaggressions or other disrespectful behavior. Although these conversations can be difficult, they often lead to valuable learning and growth. Senior leaders can play an important role in modeling that it is safe to surface and discuss these behaviors.

4. Finetune flexible working models

The past few years have seen a transformation in how we work. Flexibility is now the norm in most companies; the next step is unlocking its full potential and bringing out the best of the benefits that different work arrangements have to offer. Here are three steps to get started:

Establish clear expectations and norms around working flexibly. Without this clarity, employees may have very different and conflicting interpretations of what’s expected of them. It starts with redefining the work best done in person, versus remotely, and injecting flexibility into the work model to meet personal demands. As part of this process, companies need to find the right balance between setting organization-wide guidelines and allowing managers to work with their teams to determine an approach that unlocks benefits for men and women equally.

Measure the impact of new initiatives to support flexibility and adjust them as needed. The last thing companies want to do is fly in the dark as they navigate the transition to flexible work. As organizations roll out new working models and programs to support flexibility, they should carefully track what’s working, and what’s not, and adjust their approach accordingly—a test-and-learn mentality and a spirit of co-creation with employees are critical to getting these changes right.

Few companies currently track outcomes across work arrangements. For example, only 30 percent have tracked the impact of their return-to-office policies on key DEI outcomes.

Put safeguards in place to ensure a level playing field across work arrangements. Companies should take steps to ensure that employees aren’t penalized for working flexibly. This includes putting systems in place to make sure that employees are evaluated fairly, such as redesigning performance reviews to focus on results rather than when and where work gets done. Managers should also be equipped to be part of the solution. This requires educating managers on proximity bias. Managers need to ensure their team members get equal recognition for their contributions and equal opportunities to advance regardless of working model.

5. Fix the broken rung for women, with a focus on women of color

Fixing the broken rung is a tangible, achievable goal and will set off a positive chain reaction across the pipeline. After nine years of very little progress, there is no excuse for companies failing to take action. Here are three steps to get started:

Track inputs and outcomes. To uncover inequities in the promotions process, companies need to track who is put up for and who receives promotions—by race and gender combined. Tracking with this intersectional lens enables employers to identify and address the obstacles faced by women of color, and companies can use these data points to identify otherwise invisible gaps and refine their promotion processes.

Work to de-bias performance reviews and promotions. Leaders should put safeguards in place to ensure that evaluation criteria are applied fairly and bias doesn’t creep into decision making. Companies can take these actions:

• Send “bias” reminders before performance evaluations and promotion cycles, explaining how common biases can impact reviewers’ assessments.
• Appoint a “bias monitor” to keep performance evaluations and promotions discussions focused on the core criteria for the job and surface potentially biased decision making.
• Have reviewers explain the rationale behind their performance evaluations and promotion recommendations. When individuals have to justify their decisions, they are less likely to make snap judgments or rely on gut feelings, which are prone to bias.

Invest in career advancement for women of color. Companies should make sure their career development programs address the distinct biases and barriers that women of color experience. Yet only a fraction of companies tailor career program content for women of color. And given that women of color tend to get less career advice and have less access to senior leaders, formal mentorship and sponsorship programs can be particularly impactful. It’s also important that companies track the outcomes of their career development programs with an intersectional lens to ensure they are having the intended impact and not inadvertently perpetuating inequitable outcomes.

Practices of top-performing companies

Companies with strong women’s representation across the pipeline are more likely to have certain practices in place. The following data are based on an analysis of top performers—companies that have a higher representation of women and women of color than their industry peers (Exhibit 7).

This year’s survey brings to light important realities about women’s experience in the workplace today. Women, and particularly women of color, continue to lose the most ground in middle management, and microaggressions have a significant and enduring effect on many women—especially those with traditionally marginalized identities. Even still, women are as ambitious as ever, and flexibility is contributing to this, allowing all workers to be more productive while also achieving more balance in their lives. These insights can provide a backdrop for senior leaders as they plan for the future of their organizations.

Emily Field is a partner in McKinsey’s Seattle office; Alexis Krivkovich and Lareina Yee are senior partners in the Bay Area office, where Nicole Robinson is an associate partner; Sandra Kügele is a consultant in the Washington, D.C., office.

The authors wish to thank Zoha Bharwani, Quentin Bolton, Sara Callander, Katie Cox, Ping Chin, Robyn Freeman, James Gannon, Jenn Gao, Mar Grech, Alexis Howard, Isabelle Hughes, Sara Kaplan, Ananya Karanam, Sophia Lam, Nina Li, Steven Lee, Anthea Lyu, Tess Mandoli, Abena Mensah, Laura Padula, David Pinski, Jane Qu, Charlie Rixey, Sara Samir, Chanel Shum, Sofia Tam, Neha Verma, Monne Williams, Lily Xu, Yaz Yazar, and Shirley Zhao for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Women in the workplace: Breaking up to break through

Women in the Workplace 2022

Why Gender Equity in the Workplace is Good for Business

Research indicates a correlation between gender equity and organizational success, yet it also points to obstacles for women in leadership.

Mary Sharp Emerson

A growing body of research indicates a strong correlation between gender equity and organizational success. Yet, it also points to persistent obstacles hindering the development and advancement of women in leadership.

At first glance, a number of indicators support the idea that gender equity in the workplace is within sight. More women than men are graduating with bachelor’s degrees. Women are no longer leaving the workforce to raise families in larger numbers than men. And women are playing an increasingly visible role in executive leadership. 

In the C-suite, for example, the number of women leaders has increased from 17 percent to 21 percent in the last five years, according to McKinsey & Company’s Women in the Workplace 2019 study . The research also shows senior-level women are being promoted at a higher rate than men, on average.

Still, a large gap between the number of men and women in leadership roles continues to persist. 

Moreover, it is increasingly clear that the gap starts early, often at the level of emerging leadership (entry- and mid-level management). Women are 18 percent less likely to be promoted than their male coworkers. This gap only widens further up the management chain: Men hold 62 percent of management positions, compared to 38 percent for women.

In other words, obstacles to early promotion into management create a long-term talent gap, hindering women’s ability to “climb the corporate ladder” into senior leadership roles.  

Successfully addressing this talent gap at the corporate level requires more than simply paying lip service to “diversity training.” Instead, it requires a thoughtful and strategic approach — across all levels of management, from the executive down to the middle manager — focused on ensuring an equal playing field, particularly at the lowest rungs of the management ladder.

Why Gender Equity Matters

In 2020, gender equity is more than simply a buzzword. A growing body of research now demonstrates fairly conclusively that a true commitment to diversity generally — and gender equity more specifically — can have concrete financial benefits. 

Ten years of research by McKinsey and LeanIn.org offers key statistics demonstrating a clear correlation between organizational diversity and financial performance. For instance:

• Companies with the greatest proportion of women on executive committees earned a 47 percent higher rate of return on equity than companies with no women executives.  
• Companies in the top 25 percent for gender diversity are 27 percent more likely to outperform their national industry average in terms of profitability.
• Companies in the bottom 25 percent for gender diversity were significantly less likely to see higher profits than their national industry average.

As McKinsey acknowledges, correlation is not the same as causation. Yet the consistency of the data over the past decade strongly indicates that the link between diversity at the leadership level and financial performance is not coincidental.

The link lies in organizational health. Organizations that actively create and promote strong internal processes dedicated to incorporating a variety of perspectives, experiences, and leadership styles consistently outperform competitors with homogenous leadership teams. 

This is true across many different dependent variables, from problem solving to analytic thinking to communication. And when taken together, success across these different variables adds up to strong financial performance.

Search all Leadership and Management programs.

Obstacles to Gender Equity Remain

Unfortunately, emerging women leaders continue to face obstacles hindering gender equity and their upward mobility. And, perhaps surprisingly, these obstacles exist primarily at the first and second rungs of the corporate ladder.  

The long-term result is a profound gap in the talent pipeline, according to McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace 2018 study : 

Starting at the manager level, there are significantly fewer women to promote from within and significantly fewer women at the right experience level to hire in from the outside. So even though hiring and promotion rates improve at more senior levels, women can never catch up—we’re suffering from a “hollow middle.” This should serve as a wake-up call: until companies close the early gaps in hiring and promotion, women will remain underrepresented.

Thus, a key step in closing this talent gap at the level of the emerging leader is identifying — and eliminating — the barriers to entry facing women eager to move into leadership roles. These obstacles include: 

• Unconscious bias and discrimination (intentional or unintentional)
• Fewer opportunities to showcase leadership skills
• Lack of support and advocacy by immediate supervisor(s)
• Less opportunity to network up the management chain
• Failure to recognize the benefits of diverse leadership and communication strategies
• Lack of advice on career advancement
• Ongoing assumptions about willingness to remain in the workforce long-term
• Failure to make diversity and gender parity a true priority at all levels of management

The “hollow middle,” or talent gap at the bottom rung of the corporate ladder, will persist until leaders and managers take active steps to eliminate these and other obstacles women face as they attempt to move into management. 

Most critically, change must be driven down from senior leadership to the level where it matters the most: with a commitment to gender equity among middle-level managers who are most likely to influence women’s career advancement.

Find related Leadership and Management programs.

Browse all Professional & Executive Development programs.

About the Author

Digital Content Producer

Emerson is a Digital Content Producer at Harvard DCE. She is a graduate of Brandeis University and Yale University and started her career as an international affairs analyst. She is an avid triathlete and has completed three Ironman triathlons, as well as the Boston Marathon.

Planning for Tomorrow’s Disruption

How to leverage critical leadership lessons from today’s crisis to anticipate and prepare for the next disruption.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Bias Against Women Persists in Female-Dominated Workplaces

• Amber L. Stephenson,
• Leanne M. Dzubinski

A look inside the ongoing barriers women face in law, health care, faith-based nonprofits, and higher education.

New research examines gender bias within four industries with more female than male workers — law, higher education, faith-based nonprofits, and health care. Having balanced or even greater numbers of women in an organization is not, by itself, changing women’s experiences of bias. Bias is built into the system and continues to operate even when more women than men are present. Leaders can use these findings to create gender-equitable practices and environments which reduce bias. First, replace competition with cooperation. Second, measure success by goals, not by time spent in the office or online. Third, implement equitable reward structures, and provide remote and flexible work with autonomy. Finally, increase transparency in decision making.

It’s been thought that once industries achieve gender balance, bias will decrease and gender gaps will close. Sometimes called the “ add women and stir ” approach, people tend to think that having more women present is all that’s needed to promote change. But simply adding women into a workplace does not change the organizational structures and systems that benefit men more than women . Our new research (to be published in a forthcoming issue of Personnel Review ) shows gender bias is still prevalent in gender-balanced and female-dominated industries.

• Amy Diehl , PhD is chief information officer at Wilson College and a gender equity researcher and speaker. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield). Find her on LinkedIn at Amy-Diehl , Twitter @amydiehl , and visit her website at amy-diehl.com
• AS Amber L. Stephenson , PhD is an associate professor of management and director of healthcare management programs in the David D. Reh School of Business at Clarkson University. Her research focuses on the healthcare workforce, how professional identity influences attitudes and behaviors, and how women leaders experience gender bias.
• LD Leanne M. Dzubinski , PhD is acting dean of the Cook School of Intercultural Studies and associate professor of intercultural education at Biola University, and a prominent researcher on women in leadership. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield).

Partner Center

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

Gender inequality in the workplace: The fight against bias

Jump to section

The fight against gender discrimination

What does it look like today?

Steps managers can take to eliminate gender inequality in organizations

Steps employees can take to combat gender inequality.

True gender equality is intersectional

The Equal Pay Day , a symbolic event created to highlight wage inequity, fell on March 24 this year. This day shows how far into the year — 83 more days in 2021 — women need to work just to be able to earn the same that men earned in the previous year. Gender inequality in the workplace isn’t limited to unequal wages, either. Women, especially black women, LGBTQ+ women, and women of color, continue to face barriers to move into leadership positions and are likely to face microaggressions — offensive statements or insensitive questions — related to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual identity. Leaders need to close gender gaps in career advancement and eliminate workplace discrimination . There are concrete ways to achieve this ideal — transparent salaries, flexible work options, training opportunities for women, and a focus on well-being and mental health. Employees, too, can play a part in ensuring gender equity on all fronts by becoming allies , speaking up against instances of discrimination, and giving honest feedback to leaders. Before we lay down some tactics to combat gender inequality, let’s take a look at how and when the first steps were taken.

The fight against gender discrimination started in the 19th century

In 1872, Belva Ann Lockwood , an attorney, persuaded the U.S. Congress to pass a law guaranteeing equal pay for women employed as federal employees. Nearly a century later, t he Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, making it law to pay equal wages to men and women in all workplaces. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 granted equal rights to women in all areas of employment and was amended in 1991 to allow women to sue employers for sexual harassment. Despite the federal law against gender inequality and discrimination, it creeps into workplaces in insidious ways. While some progress has been made, gender inequality continues to persist even today .

Gender inequality in the workplace: What does it look like today?

Gender inequality in the workplace takes many forms — unequal pay, disparity in promotions, incidents of sexual harassment, and racism. Often, it presents itself in more nuanced ways, like fewer opportunities for women who are mothers and a higher incidence of burnout in women.

Unequal pay

Equal pay for men and women is still not a reality. In 2020, women earned 84% of what men earned for the same job, and Black and Latina women earned even less . This gender pay gap has persisted over the past years, shrinking by just 8 cents in 25 years. There are multiple reasons to blame, including “sticky floors” that result from traditional social norms that keep women from choosing higher-paying roles and male-dominated industries, unequal access to education, and discrimination.

In addition, women, especially those living intersectional realities like transgender and immigrant women, grapple with a fear of negotiating pay and being penalized if they do. One recent study questioned this idea and found that women ask for pay raises just as often as men, but they get it only 15% of the time as compared to 20% when men ask.

Barriers to Promotion

There is a “ broken rung ” at the manager level: “For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 86 women are promoted.” This problem is compounded at higher levels of leadership: fewer women managers means there are fewer candidates to promote to heads of department, directors, and C-suite positions, too. You can see this lack of representation clear as day: 62% of C-suite positions are held by white men, compared with 20% taken up by white women (greater than the 13% occupied by men of color) and a mere 4% by women of color.

Plus, managers frequently identify candidates for employment opportunities by relying on their personal networks for recommendations, which usually consists of “people like them” (same gender, race, identity ). This further perpetuates the imbalance in representation.

Bias against mothers

Mothers, and women of child-bearing age, are less likely to receive a callback from hiring managers, even when their résumés are identical to the résumés of male applicants or childless women. This points to gender biases rooted in the “work/family narrative,” which views women through the caregiver/mother lens. The (erroneous) conclusion is that their devotion to family and childcare makes them less committed and unable to put in long hours like their male counterparts, especially at high-level jobs. The pandemic’s “gender effect” dealt a further blow, driving nearly 2 million women , especially mothers with young children, to consider downshifting their careers or leaving the workforce.

Higher burnout in women

Research shows that more women than men, especially in higher-up positions, are burned out and dealing with constant stress in the work environment. The pandemic nearly doubled the burnout gap between men and women. This makes women more prone to accepting “accommodations” like part-time work or internal roles that further derail their careers and contribute to gender inequality.

Incidents of sexual harassment

Thirty-five percent of women in the U.S. experience sexual harassment at some point during their careers: a sign that sexism is overlooked in the workplace. Sexual harassment could also be a direct side effect of disparity in pay and promotions. Following the #MeToo movement that started in October 2017, incidents of sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention declined . But there has been a sharp increase in hostility towards women — a survey uncovered that gender harassment (sexist remarks and inappropriate stories from male colleagues) spiked to 92% in 2018, from 76% in 2016.

Experiences in racism

Compared to white women, women of color and women with marginalized identities face a higher rate of disrespectful and “othering” microaggressions like being questioned or interrupted. Women of color also do not have active allies at work. White employees think of themselves as allies to women of color, but less than half actually take even basic actions like calling out bias or rallying for new opportunities for women of color. Often, this is because white "allies" and women of color have very different ideas of what’s helpful.

According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2020 , none of us will see gender equality during our lifetimes. Before the pandemic, the report estimated it would take us 99.5 years to achieve gender parity. The Covid-19 pandemic set us back by a whole generation — the 2021 report states that the gender gap will not close for 135.6 years because it impacted women (especially mothers, black women, and senior women) harder than men. However, these predictions are based on the current state of gender inequality. We can start making a meaningful impact now to bridge the gap:

1. Educate employees on unconscious gender bias

Everyone can have unconscious biases and prejudices about people or groups. Offer implicit bias training through the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to managers to make them aware of these hidden biases towards minorities so that they can actively avoid discriminatory behavior and make more informed decisions to promote gender equality.

2. Appoint diverse interviewers and implement longer shortlists to hire more women in top positions

Research shows that an extended shortlist of candidates for open positions creates more gender diversity because it pushes managers to think beyond the gender stereotypes associated with a role. Train Human Resources managers on how to make these types of longer shortlists when hiring, especially for male-dominated roles, so that more women get recruited in top positions. Take steps to ensure interviewer diversity when reviewing résumés and conducting interviews. Research shows that women are more attracted to roles when they see that the interviewer is a woman.

3. Conduct an audit and make salaries transparent

Conduct a company-wide audit to ensure that men and women in the same roles get paid equally. Use the findings to adjust salaries and close any gender wage gaps . In 2013, Buffer adopted complete transparency and disclosed all salaries . As a result, their job applications rose from 1,263 in the 30 days before the announcement to 2,886 in the next month, expanding the talent pool.

4. Give employees the flexibility to work when and where works for them

The pandemic has proven that remote work is equally, if not more, productive . Provide flexibility in when and where employees can work. For women, this flexibility in work hours can prove to be a “critical enabler” of retention in the workforce because it allows them to maintain a work-life balance. However, if your organization follows a hybrid model, beware of falling prey to presenteeism , where men who choose to go to an office may be more ‘visible’ at work and therefore disproportionately rewarded.

5. Provide development opportunities to enable women to transition to higher-skilled roles

Provide women with opportunities to learn new skills and become more tech-savvy. Between 40 million and 160 million women globally are estimated to transition to higher-skilled jobs by 2030, which could lead them to more productive and better-paying work. Prioritizing women’s advancement has many benefits for organizations, too, including high revenue growth, more innovation, and increased customer satisfaction.

6. Empower women through coaching sessions

Women are disproportionately affected by Covid-19, and coaching empowers them to stay and advance in the workforce. But there is a gender gap in access to coaching , too. Provide women with regular coaching sessions so they can build skills and develop the mindsets they need to thrive, especially in leadership roles. BetterUp Labs coached 440 women across different organizations and found that the coaching sessions helped women achieve giant strides in self-awareness, inclusive leadership , and overall employee experience.

7. Provide resources to improve well-being and mental health

At any given time, 55% of the workforce is languishing . Make mental fitness part of the company culture by modeling empathy and training managers to be more empathetic. Offer personalized support to meet women where they are at and help them grow in their careers .

8. Establish mentor-mentee relationships

Give employees scheduled time to participate in mentoring programs . Mentoring programs benefit the mentor as much as the mentee, according to a recent study . Provide opportunities for women to take up mentoring positions because it helps them see themselves as leaders and role models. There’s another benefit when women mentor men — it helps to eliminate gender bias .

9. Offer at least 4 months for paid parental leave

Paid time off to nurture a new child has immense health and career benefits. Establish generous policies for maternity leave, with a minimum of four months . Provide separate parental leave for fathers, like Sweden and Iceland , to encourage men to take time off and share in household responsibilities as well as let women back into the workforce.

Employees, too, can play an active role in advancing gender equality in their workplaces. Individuals who are proactive at work help in creating a better future and prevent the recurrence of existing problems.

1. Participate in DEIB initiatives at your organization

DEIB initiatives benefit everyone in the workplace. When you participate in DEIB initiatives , you can bring your own experience and use it to promote change. Even if you are not part of an underrepresented group, using your voice to help others who may be facing barriers helps you grow too .

2. Call out instances of gender discrimination or biases

Just like the #MeToo movement started with one instance of speaking out against sexual harassment, taking a stand even if you are alone can bring about lasting change and empower others to speak up.

3. Join or build a women’s Employee Resource Group

ERG groups help develop internal leaders, educate employees, and have a positive impact on retention. Join or create an ERG to help build psychologically safe spaces for women, women with disabilities, women of color, and LGBTQ+ women.

4. Become a mentor to women and women of color

Your lived experiences are far more valuable and truthful than any other resources provided to other women in the workforce. Use them to share lessons while mentoring women.

5. Provide honest feedback to leaders on their gender inequality initiatives

Employee feedback on initiatives around advancing gender equality can be a driver of change. Be honest with your employers about what’s working and what’s not.

We won't achieve true gender equality until it is intersectional

“All inequality is not created equal,” Kimberlé Crenshaw said, pointing to the fact that varied and overlapping identities compound experiences of discrimination. Some women experience discrimination based on their gender, while other women may face, in addition to gender, inequalities arising from race, ability, sexual orientation, caste, and class. Even Equal Pay Day is not equal for all women : white women may have had to work until March 24, 2021, to make as much as their male counterparts did in 2020, but Black women would have to work until August 3, 2021, to earn what men did in 2020, and Latina women, until October 21, 2021. Until workplaces acknowledge these complex layers and make systemic changes, gender equality will remain a distant dream. Learn how BetterUp can help your organization support women and underrepresented groups and help change behavior and culture across the organization.

Thrive in your workplace

Connect with our Coaches to build stronger workplace relationships and cultivate a culture that drives success.

Maggie Wooll, MBA

Maggie Wooll is a researcher, author, and speaker focused on the evolving future of work. Formerly the lead researcher at the Deloitte Center for the Edge, she holds a Bachelor of Science in Education from Princeton University and an MBA from the University of Virginia Darden School of Business. Maggie is passionate about creating better work and greater opportunities for all.

Women in the workplace: The millenary fight against gender bias

What gender inclusive means, and why your use of pronouns matters, defining the gender gap in coaching: what it is and how to fix it, work has changed in countless ways, but gender bias persists, many working parents feel guilt, but some groups feel it more than others, superhero-ines: 3 skills women use to conquer obstacles at work, how performance reviews can reinforce gender bias: 5 steps to avoid it, what’s the deal with gender pronouns why language matters, managers say men and women differ in these five areas: is it true, similar articles, standing with the black community in the fight to end racial injustice, 9 ways to promote equity in the workplace (and how to lead by example), breaking the glass ceiling at work and unleashing your potential, women experience increased stress in male-dominated industries, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institutional Discrimination in HR Policy

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

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

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

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

Personal Discrimination in HR-Related Decision-Making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Discrimination in HR Enactment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Reduce Gender Discrimination in Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Organizational Decision Makers’ Sexism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict of Interest Statement

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

113 Gender Roles Essay Topics & Examples

Looking for gender roles essay topics? This field is hot, controversial, and really worth exploring!

• 🔝 Top 10 Gender Topics
• 📝 Gender Essay: Writing Tips
• 🏆 Gender Essay Examples & Topic Ideas

✍️ Gender Argumentative Essay Topics

❓ research questions about gender roles.

In your gender role essay, you might want to focus on the issues of gender equality in the workplace. Another exciting option is to write about gender stereotypes in education. Finally, you can elaborate on how traditional gender roles are changing.

In this article, you’ll find a list of gender argumentative essay topics, ideas for papers on gender and society, as well as top gender roles essay examples.

🔝 Top 10 Gender Roles Topics

• Gender stereotypes and the way they affect people
• Fighting gender stereotypes and sexism
• Gender equality in the workplace
• Gender stereotypes in education
• Gender schema theory
• Is gender socially constructed?
• Social learning theory and gender
• Gender roles and sexual orientation
• Body image and gender
• Social gender construction in the media

📝 Gender Roles Essay: Writing Tips

Essays on gender roles present students’ understanding of the similarities, differences, and aspects of gender roles in society.

Writing gender roles essays helps learners to understand the significance of topics related to gender roles and the changes in societal norms. Students should be highly aware of the problems associated with traditional gender roles. For example, there are many periods in world history, in which people did not have equal rights.

Moreover, some aspects of gender roles may be associated with discrimination. To make an essay on this problem outstanding, you should discuss the problem in detail and present your points clearly. A useful tip is to develop a good structure for your paper.

Before starting to work on the paper, you should select the problem that is most interesting or relevant to you.

Gender roles essay topics and titles may include:

• The history of gender roles and their shifts throughout the time
• Male and female roles in society
• Gender roles in literature and media
• How a man and a woman is perceived in current society
• The causes and outcomes of gender discrimination
• The problem of ‘glass ceiling’
• The problem of social stratification and its outcomes
• The revolution in the concept of gender

After selecting the issue for discussion, you can start working on the essay’s structure. Here are some useful tips on how to structure your paper:

• Select the topic you want to discuss (you can choose one from the list above). Remember to pay attention to the type of essay you should write. If it is an argumentative essay, reflect on what problem you would want to analyze from opposing perspectives.
• Gender roles essay titles are important because they can help you to get the reader’s attention. Think of something simple but self-explanatory.
• An introductory paragraph is necessary, as it will present the questions you want to discuss in the paper. Remember to state the thesis of your essay in this section.
• Think of your gender roles essay prompts. Which aspects of the selected problem do you want to focus on? Dedicate a separate section for each of the problems.
• Remember to include a refutation section if you are writing an argumentative essay. In this section, you should discuss an alternative perspective on the topic in 1-2 paragraphs. Do not forget to outline why your opinion is more credible than the alternative one.
• Avoid making the paragraphs and sentences too long. You can stick to a 190 words maximum limit for one paragraph. At the same time, make sure that the paragraphs are longer than 65 words. Try to make all sections of the body paragraphs of similar length.
• Check out examples online to see how you can structure your paper and organize the information. Pay attention to the number of paragraphs other students include.
• Remember to include a gender roles essay conclusion. In this paragraph, you will discuss the most important claims of your paper.
• Do not forget to add a reference page in which you will include the sources used in the paper. Ask your professor in advance about the types of literature you can utilize for the essay.

Do not forget that there are free samples on our website that can help you to get the best ideas for your essay!

🏆 Gender Roles Essay Examples & Topic Ideas

• Gender Roles in Antigone Essay This will be seen through an analysis of the other characters in the play and the values of ancient Greeks. Indeed this central character appears to be at odds with the inclinations of the other […]
• Conflict of Gender Roles in Munro’s “Boys and Girls” Munro’s “Boys and Girls” is a story about a puzzled girl who struggles to find the balance between the battles of her inner female-housewife side, like her mother, and a boyish character who likes to […]
• Gender Roles in “The Glass Menagerie” by Tennessee Williams In the play The Glass Menagerie, Tennessee Williams has written the story of the Wingfield family that lived in St Louis during the 1940s.
• Gender Roles Set in Stone: Prehistoric and Ancient Work of Arts In the prehistoric and ancient works of art, the representation of women and men reveals a massive imbalance in gender equity that favors men over women.
• Athena and Gender Roles in Greek Mythology According to Eicher and Roach-Higgins, the elements of her dress were important because they immediately communicated specific ideas about her character that was as contradictory as the physical gender of the birthing parent.”In appropriating the […]
• Gender Roles in the 19th Century Society: Charlotte Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper However, the narrator’s developing madness can also act as the symbolical depiction of the effects of the men’s dominance on women and the female suppression in the 19th-century society.”The Yellow Wallpaper” was first published in […]
• Gender Roles in “Bridge to Terabithia” by Paterson The theme of gender roles is consistently present in the novel, starting with character origins and becoming the central concept as they mature to defy archetypal perceptions of feminine and masculine expectations in order to […]
• The Concepts of Gender Roles and Sexuality by John Money and Judith Butler These categories of feminists are united in the belief of existence of many children and little sex. This paper explains the concepts and ideologies relating to gender roles and sexuality.as advocated by John Money and […]
• Gender Roles: Changes From the Late 1800’s to Today The definition of who is a male or a female depends on the types of gender roles one was exposed to during the early ages. In today’s society, we have a greater number of women […]
• Gender Roles and Stereotyping in Education Teachers should be trained to give clear and useful instruction to students on the issue of gender roles in modern society.
• Gender roles in the Wind in the Willows For instance, in the case where both the mole and the rat make comments to the toad that are full of women critics.
• Gender Roles and Family Systems in Hispanic Culture In the Hispanic culture, amarianismo’ and amachismo’ are the terms used to determine the various behavioral expectations among the family members.
• Biology and Gender Roles in Society Thus, it may be more convenient for society to justify the imposition of certain gender roles on men and women using biology-related arguments, which, in reality, are more related to culture and social development.
• Gender Roles by Margaret Mead Once the a rift defining men and women develops this way, it goes further and defines the positions, which men and women occupy in the society, basing on these physical and biological differences, which form […]
• Gender Roles in Toy Stores According to Fisher-Thompson et al, two of the major differentiating factors in toys for girls and boys are color and nature.
• Gender Roles Inversion: The Madonna Phenomenon At the same time partial narrowing of the gender gap in the context of economic participation did not lead to the equality of men and women in the field of their occupations.
• Gender Roles in The Yellow Wallpaper & Trifles The two texts; the short story ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ by Charlotte Perkins and the play ‘Trifles’ by Susan Glaspell strategically illustrate this claim since they both aim at attracting the reader’s attention to the poor […]
• Gender Roles in Social Constructionism The reality, in the view of sociologists, is a social attitude in connection with which a personality is formed that adapts to the requirements of the world.
• Gender Roles and Body Image in Disney Movies In this research, attention will be paid to gender roles and body images of Disney princesses to understand the popularity of the franchise and its impact on child development.
• Gender Roles in Brady’s “Why I Want a Wife” and Sacks’ “Stay-at-Home Dads” Yet, there are some distinctions Judy Brady believes that women are often viewed as unpaid house servants who have to take care of husbands’ needs, whereas Glenn Sacks argues that gender roles begin to transform […]
• Women’s Gender Roles in American Literature The stories written by Constance Woolson Fenimore, Mary Wilkins Freeman, and Jaqueline Bishop highlight the harmful gender roles and discrimination that still remains a major topic for disputes and illustrate the fate of oppressed women.
• China’s Gender Roles in Mo Yan’s and Shen Fu’s Works Six Records of a Floating Life is a multi-faceted chronicle which helps to comprehend the difficulties and the features of Shen Fu’s life and the romance between him and his beloved Chen Yun.
• Fashions, gender roles and social views of the 1950s and 1960s Fashion was highly valued and this can be seen in the way the clothes worn by the wives of the presidential candidates in America hit the headlines. In the 1950s, the role of housekeeping and […]
• Gender Roles in Society One might think that a child is born with the idea of how to behave in relation to gender while in the real sense; it is the cultivation of the society that moulds people to […]
• Gender Roles in Brady’s and Theroux’s Works In the satire “Being a Man” by Paul Theroux, the author demonstrates to readers the essence of how a particular manifestation of masculinity is extolled in American society.
• Aspects of Gender Roles and Identity The breadth of her practice in transgender issues suggests that every choice Bowers makes is ethical, requiring her to be respectful and highly responsible.
• Changing Gender Roles in Families Over Time The division of labor and traditional gender roles in the family usually consists of men doing the work while women take care of the children, other relatives, and housekeeping.
• Gender Roles, Expectations, and Discrimination Despite Isaac being the calmest boy in the school, he had a crush on Grace, a beautiful girl in the school who was from a wealthy family.
• Gender Roles and Stereotypes in Straightlaced Film One might conclude that gender neutrality and abstraction in offices are only a cover to maintain the basis of gender injustice.
• Children’s Views of Gender Roles Today, both parents and teachers see the positive impact of the attempts to integrate anti-biased gender-related education on young children as they get more freedom to express themselves and grow up less aggressive.
• The Construction of Gender Roles However, it is wrong to consider women exposed to the domestic work powerless, as they have the opportunity to informally or implicitly influence men and the decisions they make.
• Sociology of the Family: Gender Roles Thus, the societal predisposition and notion that women are lesser in the community should be abandoned, and greater emphasis should be placed on the critical functions they perform in the household. These assertions, equivocations, and […]
• Femininity and Masculinity: Understanding Gender Roles The understanding of how gender roles are portrayed in the media and the general perception of the expected behavior for men and women communicated non-verbally in the society is the basis on which children build […]
• Injustice Within Strict Gender Roles There is still no clear answer to how a person can find his or her destiny and place in the world, and understand the opportunities and prospects, considering the opinion of the dominant number of […]
• Gender Roles and How People Perceive Them However, all of the survey participants indicated that their families would be inclined to differentiate between the toys for a child based on the latter’s sex and the corresponding perceived gender role.
• Gender Roles: From Prehistoric Era to Modern Society Since each gender was assigned a particular role in the past due to the differences in the biological makeup between a man and a woman in the prehistoric era, the modern process of communication between […]
• Gender Roles in TV Commercials and Values in the Society Each of them will watch, code, and analyze the TV commercials separately; at the end of the procedure, their results will be compared in order to ensure the inter-observer reliability of the chosen research method.
• Gender Roles in Contemporary Society The conditions of life are tough and it is presumed that only men are able to carry out such hardships and limitations of a soldier life.
• Gender Roles in ‘Mr. Green’ by Robert Olen Butler Green Butler uses the character of the grandfather to develop the theme of gender roles within the culture. The character of the grandfather is extremely sound for the cultural beliefs the author conveyed through all […]
• Culture and History: Gender Roles Over the Past 50 or So Years It is not that there were no women in the workforce; it was just that she had to choose one over the other, juggling the two was quite rare and unheard of.
• Gender Roles and Sexuality in Media: Cosmopolitan & Maxim The woman portrayed in these sites is supposed to look ‘hot’ and sexy in order to be attractive to a man.
• The Problem of Gender Roles in Society Based on Plays by Glaspell and Ibsen The men in the play are constantly showing their self-importance, they are trying to act like real detectives, and they do not even realize that Mrs. But, all of a sudden, the moment of repaying […]
• Social Element in Gender Roles I learned of the origins of gay and lesbian studies, as well that of the confining of such studies in earlier times to specific institutions.
• Equality: The Use of TV to Develop Our Gender Roles In this sense, when it is the men who predominantly work outside of the home, they will usually see the home as a place of leisure and so use the TV as a source of […]
• Family Unit and Gender Roles in Society and Market The role of molding the infant into an adult belonged to the family in the ancient society. In the past, the father was expected to be the breadwinner of the family.
• Gender Roles and Social Classes in Wartime The message is as simple as “The women of Britain say ‘Go.’” It points to the role of both men and women in wartime.
• The Necessity for Gender Roles The potential change from the elimination of the differences in gender may affect every perceived part of one’s life. Such factors as one’s occupation, status, and appearance may also contribute to the creation of stereotypes.
• Changing Gender Roles Between Boys and Girls In the twenty-first Century, girls have greatly stepped up and assumed some of the roles that were considered to be boy’s while boys have done the same leading to an interchange of roles.
• Nomadic Society’s Gender Roles and Warrior Culture On the one hand, it was clear that the 1100s and the 1200s included the period of male power. It was wrong to assume that all women were similar and treat them in the same […]
• “Beside Oneself” by Judith Butler: Gender Roles Following the views of the author, who states that choice in the formation of gender and sexuality is not transparent, and a key role is still played by others in the form of expectations and […]
• Gender Roles in Couples and Sex Stereotypes Altogether, the last reconsiderations of the nature of relations promoted the appearance of numerous debates related to the role of partners and their right to be the leader.
• Gender Roles in South Korean Laws and Society At the same time, all custody is traditionally granted to husbands and fathers in a case of a divorce” though the anxiety about the high divorce rate and the nasty endings of relationships is more […]
• Understanding the Social Element in Gender Roles When saying that gender is a binary construction, one implies that there are two genders, namely, the masculine and the feminine one, and two corresponding types of social behaviour, which are predetermined by the existing […]
• Gender Roles in Tango: Cultural Aspects However, one should not assume that the role of women in tango is inferior because they create the most aesthetic aspects of this dance.
• Discussing Gender Roles in the Interaction Perspective It is the purpose of this issue to discuss the concept of gender roles using the sociological perspective of symbolic interaction.
• Women in Hip-Hop Music: A Provocative and Objectified Gender Roles It is one thing that men want women to be in music videos and play a particular role, but women are willing to participate in the videos.
• Content Analysis of Gender Roles in Media In the critical analysis of the article, the point of disagreement is that of under-representation of women in the media. How do the media subordinate and relegate roles of women in society?
• Effects of Media Messages about Gender Roles Media articles, such as the Maxim Magazine and the Cosmopolitan Magazine, socialize individuals to believe that women are very different from men as regards to dressing, behaving, and eating.
• The Change of Gender Roles This similarity is one of the most important to focus on the structure of the narrative. In both plays, the main actions of the characters are not directly described by the authors.
• Gender Equality: Male Dominance The simple reason is that gender inequality exists in affluent societies wherein women are free to do what they want, have access to education, and have the capacity to create wealth.
• “The Odd Women” and “Women in Love”: Evolving Views of Gender Roles An effort is also made to track the changes of the roles of women in the social fabric in the Victorian era by considering The Odd Women by George Gissing written in 1893.
• Gender Roles: Constructing Gender Identity In the course of the twentieth century and at the threshold of the twenty-first century, the images and roles of gender have constantly been changing.
• Analysis of the Peculiarities of Gender Roles Within Education, Families and Student Communities Peculiarities of gender aspect within the education system and labour market Attitude for marriage of men and women as one of the major aspects within the analysis of gender roles Family relations as a significant […]
• Ideology of Gender Roles In the world of literature, ideology has played a vital role in depicting the condition of the society. In this scenario, Kingston reveals that the men out-live their roles in the society, and they are […]
• Concepts of Gender Roles As a result of these, the war on gender inequality and sexism has failed, because of the failure of these agents of change to promote gender equality and eliminate discriminative notions held by the society.
• Cohabitation and Division of Gender Roles in a Couple Cohabitation is perceived in the society as the form of relationships which is an effective alternative to the traditional marriage because of focusing on the principles of flexibility, freedom, and equality, but few couples can […]
• Gender Roles in the United States Over the Last Century The men’s perception towards this idea was negative, and this consequently resulted to a conflict with the men claiming that the roles of the women were in the kitchen.
• Cheating, Gender Roles, and the Nineteenth-Century Croquet Craze The author’s main thesis is, “Yet was this, in fact, how the game was played on the croquet lawns of the nineteenth century?” Whereas authors of croquet manuals and magazines emphasize so much on the […]
• Gender Roles in Cartoons Though the males are portrayed to be logical, but it is shown that the females are more successful because of simple blunders or miscalculations which males fail to understand, females are able to beat males […]
• The Industrial Revolution Impact on the Gender Roles The population growth combined with the increased productivity of small parts of the country and the migration of the now landless people in search of work opportunities led to the phenomena of urbanization.
• How Does Aristophanes Represent Gender Roles in Lysistrata?
• Are Gender Roles and Relationships More Equal in Modern Family Life?
• How Do Children Develop Gender Roles?
• Does Men’s Fashion Reflect Changes in Male Gender Roles?
• How Did Colonialism Resonate With Gender Roles and Oppression?
• Are Gender Roles Damaging Society?
• How Did Revolutions Affect Gender Roles?
• Are Gender Roles Defined by Society or by Genetics?
• How Have Family Structure and Gender Roles Changed?
• Are Gender Roles Fluid When Dealing With Death and Tragedy?
• How Do Gender Roles Affect Communication?
• Are Gender Roles Natural?
• How Do Gender Roles Affect Immigrants?
• Are Gender Stereotyped Roles Correct?
• How Do Gender Roles Affect the Physical and Emotional Health?
• Have Gender Roles Played a Big Part in the History?
• How Do Gender Roles and Extroversion Effects How Much People Talk?
• What Are Gender Roles? How Are They Defined?
• How Are Gender Roles Predetermined by the Environment?
• What Drives the Gender Wage Gap?
• How Has Gender Roles Changed Over the Last Centuries?
• What Factors Influence Gender Roles?
• How Have Gender Roles in Japanese Theatre Influenced and Affected Societal View on Homosexuality and Masculinity?
• What Society Norms for Gender Roles Should Be Conceived?
• How Have Traditional Gender Roles Been Stressful?
• What Was Distinctive About Gender Roles in the Nineteenth Century?
• How Has Hegemonic Masculinity Set Ideas of Gender Roles?
• How Do Media and Politics Influence Gender Roles?
• Where Does the Truth on Gender Roles Lie in Nahua and Mayan Civilizations?
• How Radical Are the Changes to the Gender Roles in Carter’s “The Company of Wolves”?
• Masculinity Topics
• Social Stratification Essay Titles
• Sexism Essay Ideas
• Women’s Movement Questions
• Feminism Questions
• Cultural Relativism Questions
• Domestic Violence Paper Topics
• Sociological Perspectives Titles
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). 113 Gender Roles Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-roles-essay-examples/

"113 Gender Roles Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-roles-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '113 Gender Roles Essay Topics & Examples'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "113 Gender Roles Essay Topics & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-roles-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "113 Gender Roles Essay Topics & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-roles-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "113 Gender Roles Essay Topics & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gender-roles-essay-examples/.

Gender Inequality in the Workplace

This essay will examine the issue of gender inequality in the workplace. It will explore the various forms this inequality takes, such as wage gaps, underrepresentation in leadership roles, and discriminatory practices. The piece will discuss the root causes of gender inequality, including societal norms, unconscious bias, and structural barriers. It will also highlight the impact of this inequality on individuals and organizations and discuss efforts and strategies to promote gender equality in the workplace, including legislative measures, corporate policies, and grassroots activism. More free essay examples are accessible at PapersOwl about Critical Theory.

How it works

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

For example, if a construction position were to open up, they would choose a male over a female to be the new employee since construction is more of a masculine job. Over the years, women have received more degrees, master’s degrees, and doctorate degrees than men. Yet, women in the U.S. workforce still earn less than a man with no degree would earn. Despite being more educated than men and making up nearly half of the workforce, women are promoted at work far less often than men would be. It is a proven fact that women make up less than 5 percent of CEOs, while men make up the rest of the 95 percent with far less knowledge than women have. It did not matter then and it does not matter now in this generation of people making it difficult for women to fulfill a ¨man’s¨ duty. With that being said, discrimination against women is attributing to gender identity in the workplace still to this day.

DEGGANS, JEROME. “Gendered Inequalities in the Workplace Revisited: Masculinist

Dominance, Institutionalized Sexism, and Assaultive Behavior in the #Metoo Era.” Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, vol. 10, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 43–49. EBSCOhost, doi:10.22381/CRLSJ10220182.

This article reviews and advances existing literature concerning gendered inequalities in the workplace. With an audience of adults between the ages of 25-70 it uses information from many reliable resources. Among these are ABC news, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington Post, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, and etc. Deggans begins by talking about his analyses that he has performed on the basis of helping women in the workplace. It brings discrimation in by talking about the sexaul harassment charges filed by industries. This was said to be an issue as to why women are denied professional opportunities. He says in this article that men have been ¨falsely¨ accused of sexual assault or have said that they do not want to work with a certain women.

This article is going to support what I am talking about by giving statements that agree with the fact that there is gender inequality in the workplace. In the line, ¨Gender inequalities are especially blatant in the workplace. For instance, on average women are more likely to work part-time, be employed in low-paid jobs and not take on management positions ¨(Deggans, para.3). This piece of information will work well in my essay by simply stating that women are known to take lower level jobs than men. Along with this piece of information comes a lot that is present throughout Jeromes article.

Kamal Nath, Akshaya. “Corporate Governance Case for Board Gender Diversity: Evidence from Delaware Cases.” Albany Law Review, vol. 82, no. 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 23–119. EBSCOhost, databases.mwsu.edu:2048/login?url=http://databases.mwsu.edu:2052/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=134950112&site=ehost-live score=site.

This article over court cases gives out an abundant amount of cases from delaware. DIrected towards anybody that has a case or has had a case and needs helping it, it separates each piece of information. Starts with the rationale for board gender diversity regulations talking about the difference between an equality case and a business case. Next header is called ¨Why corporate governance case¨. It just gives questions over what you should ask when in a court case over gender identity or how to answer questions asked. Next one talks about the delaware cases and why they are going to talk about them. Following that is a list of 6 cases. And then relevant studies that can be incorporated into the essay to give backup information over the many cases.

A lot of this information can be used in the essay in order to give factual information over my topic. I can use the cases, for example the one called, ¨in re del monte foods co. shareholders litigation¨ which was based in 2011. It explores the impediments to board monitoring and accesses merits of monitoring related arguments for board gender diversity. All of the cases are super valid to where the analysis offered insights into the functioning of members of the board and their interaction with management in which they were considered.

Scarborough, William J., et al. “Support of Workplace Diversity Policies: The Role of Race, Gender, and Beliefs about Inequality.” Social Science Research, vol. 79, Mar. 2019, pp. 194–210. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.01.002.

In this peer review journal called, ¨Support of Workplace Diversity Policies: The Role of Race, Gender, and Beliefs about Inequality¨ written by William J. Scarborough. It talks about the workplace diversity policies and how they are more effective when they are supported by managers and workers. They analyzed data from a survey experiment designed to assess public opinion about a range of workplace diversity policies. They examined how support for these policies among employed respondents varies by race, gender, and by the targeted population. All of their findings highlight the role of inequality beliefs in shaping workers support for diversity policies, suggesting directions for future research on how such beliefs are developed.

Much of the information in this can be used in my essay in support of the points I am going to be making. In this essay it says that, ¨Companies are pumping more money and devoting more energy than ever before into efforts to increase and support workplace diversity¨ (Scarborough, para.1). By saying this, Scarborough is proving that even though diversity in the workplace is bad now, it will not always be that way. Information to back this up is present all throughout the peer review journal in ways that will make the essay stand factual.

“There’s a ‘Gender Earnings Gap’ but ‘Paying Women Well’ Won’t Close It.” AEI, www.aei.org/publication/there-really-is-no-gender-wage-gap-there-is-a-gender-earnings-gap-but-paying-women-well-wont-close-that-gap/.

In the article titled, ¨ There really is no ‘gender wage gap.’ There’s a ‘gender earnings gap’ but ‘paying women well’ won’t close that gap¨, written by Carpe Diem goes against what my point is. It talks about the wage gap and pay between women and men in certain jobs. It starts by saying that men and women do slightly different jobs just because that’s what they choose to do, but if they did the same job then they would get paid the same. It then says It’s an important, but overlooked point that there really is no gender wage gap, rather, there’s a gender earnings gap and that pay gap has almost nothing to do with gender discrimination. That is, there is almost no evidence that men and women working in the same position with the same background, education and qualifications are paid differently. Having them doing the exact same jobs, but saying that men will get more money is completely against the law.

An abundant amount of the information in this will help out my article. I could use the line, ¨Therefore, if the goal is to close the gender earnings gap, Sandberg’s solution to start paying women well will fail – men and women are both getting paid well when they both work in the same position and have the same job qualifications¨ (Diem, para.10). This supports it by simply saying that the gender earnings gap will never change and their will always be discrimination in the workplace. Much of the information will be good in supporting an opposition side to gender identity in the workplace going against women.

Verniers, Catherine, and Jorge Vala. “Justifying Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of Motherhood Myths.” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 1–23. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.

The article, ¨Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace¨ written by Catherine Verniers and Jorge Vala is one that will support my essay very well. It talks about the issues of gender inequality in employment and how it has rose in policies and in advanced industrial countries. It then goes on to talk about how they were all aimed at tackling gender discrimination regarding the recruitment process, salary between men and women, and promotion. But still gender inequalities in the workplace still continue to occur. In Verniers and Valas research they documented the psychosocial process involved in the persistence of gender discrimination against women in the workplace. With all of their research and documentations they succeeded in making an article over why women stand out in the workplace over men.

This agreeing article supports the claim by giving valid information such as the sentence, ¨There is evidence that gender inequalities in the workplace stem, at least in part, from the discrimination directed against women. Indeed, several studies have documented personal discrimination against women by decision makers¨ (Verniers, par.3). It also has an abundant amount of other information that can fully support what I am going to talk about such as the information listed in paragraphs two and three giving facts over gender identity.

Dellinger, Kirsten, and Christine Williams. Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace: Research in the Sociology of Work Vol 20. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, 2010.

In the book Gender and Sexuality in the workplace written by Christine Williams and Kirsten Dellinger, gender inequality in the workplace is portrayed in such a way that makes women seem like nothing in comparison to men. It is directed towards women over the age of 25 that feel like they are not getting treated fairly compared to men in the workplace. The book talks about how at one point women were actually getting paid more than men, but instead of rewarding them, it was reported as a problem. It then goes to talking about the different jobs that men and women concentrate in. Along with that is the feminist revolution of of the 1990s transforming the understanding of men’s power in society. This book also tries to get its readers to understand that women are just as powerful as men if you give them a chance to be so.

This book will help in the claim by giving information such that, ¨women developed so called feminine qualities… because they were trapped in jobs where they were required to be submissive, solicitous, and nurturing… put a man in such a job and he too would develop these qualities¨ (Kirsten, Williams, para.5). This piece of information would play a huge part in the essay by giving good ground on the fact that there is discrimination because people do not think that women would fit the criteria of a masculine like job. There are also cases listed in the book that will give proof that there is such thing as gender stereotypes in the workplace still to this day.”

Cite this page

Gender Inequality in the Workplace. (2021, Feb 24). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-in-the-workplace-3/

"Gender Inequality in the Workplace." PapersOwl.com , 24 Feb 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-in-the-workplace-3/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Gender Inequality in the Workplace . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-in-the-workplace-3/ [Accessed: 22 Jun. 2024]

"Gender Inequality in the Workplace." PapersOwl.com, Feb 24, 2021. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-in-the-workplace-3/

"Gender Inequality in the Workplace," PapersOwl.com , 24-Feb-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-in-the-workplace-3/. [Accessed: 22-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Gender Inequality in the Workplace . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-in-the-workplace-3/ [Accessed: 22-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

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

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Gender Roles in the Workplace essay

Gender equality and the socially constructed roles are rathercontroversial in the society. Most women and feminists believe thatwomen can play the roles of men. Others believe that the societycannot achieve full gender equality. Rosin indicates, “ Man hasbeen the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for thefirst time in human history, that is changing ” (4).Theworkplace is a prime example of the equality in the roles played bymen and women. The unconscious stereotypes that people have towardsboth genders have become a tradition in the workplace. Women haveincreasingly graduated with college degrees, and they have almostmatched the number of men competing for the available chances in thejob market. However, some roles have remained the domain of womenwith only a few men venturing into them.

Unlike in the 20th and early 21st century, when women earned lessthan men, the current work environment reflects high levels ofequality (Player). However, while equality has been the goal ofworkplace practices, the conditions exhibit inequality in the rolesperformed by women. For example, most of the secretaries, personalassistants and cateresses in offices are women. The workplacepractices emphasize that women perform better in some roles despitethem being non-biological.

According to Player, women play an instrumental task in choosing theroles they play in the workplace. The author argues that, while mostmen would have women as their personal assistants and secretaries,women too agree that they are more effective than men in thesepositions are. The hiring patterns confirm the trend. Playerarticulates that, “ While men may seem to be the perpetrators ofinequalities in the workplace, women who hold influential positionsare no better ” (Player). Women contribute to the perpetuatedstereotypes.

Related essays:

• In Education essay
• Violent Societies, Violent Lives essay
• Homosexuality and Nurture essay
• Gender Roles A Controlled Female Psyche essay

While writing for The Fiscal Times, Gannon concurs with Keith Merron,a senior associate at Barbara &amp Associates that thestereotypes that men and women bear are ideal for business (Gannon).The author notes that men are linear in thought, and they have anarrow way of processing their ideas. They have to, therefore, breakdown a problem into several components and address each at a time.Conversely, women have a holistic view of a problem. The authorconcurs with Player that “Both men and women have unconsciousgender stereotypes” (Gannon). The author indicates that women tendto excel in some areas and men in others.” The author’s argumentconfirms that the workplace cannot idealize equality to totality. Menand women cannot perform the same roles to produce similar outcomes.Pointing out that Keith is in a position of influence in theworkplace, the article shares a similar sentiment with Player’sidea that women too believe that they cannot perform the tasks asmen.

Wolf, however, holds a contrary opinion to the one articulated byPlayer. According to Wolf, the roles of men and women in theworkplace, especially, the ones associated with publicity have abasis in the beauty myth (Wolf 5). Women have been socialized tobelieve that they are more attractive than men are when it comes topublic relations. The appeal that people believe women to have earnedthem positions as secretaries and public relation managers. Wolfindicates, “Women have perfected the art of appealing in theworkplace and men have accepted that they cannot pay similar roles”(Wolf 5). The stereotype has become part of the workplace practices,and both men and women support it.

Wolf also argues that the number of women occupying influentialpositions is rapidly increasing. Since women are performing well justlike their male counterparts, holding onto the idea that they areonly good in some roles is stereotypical and misleading. Wolf holdsthat “Women have entered the high and middle levels of managementwithout disrupting the way that organizations operate” (Wolf 7).Wajcman concurs that the workplace stereotypes about women and menhave been cultivated to appear like a biological reality. Wajcmanagrees that the occupations are socially constructed even in theworkplace. Men and women can perform well in any role that does notrequire any biological attribute.

Wolf also observes that the workplace roles that men are believed tobe good at are culturally subjective. Therefore, believing that womenare good in some roles only portrays support for subjectivity.Player’s idea that women are good at only some roles is sharplycontrary to Wolf’s observation that, “The roles are particularlycritical to the workplace because workplace leaders perceive certainattributes associated with women to be inherent” (Wolf 8).Whengiven the right environment, men can also be productive in theseroles and equality in the workplace can become ideal.

In conclusion, the question of gender equality in the workplace iscritical to understand why some roles have been predominantlyassociated with women. Some people believe that the some of theoccupation including assistance and public relations are the domainof women. Others argue that it is a stereotype associated with women.Surprisingly, it appears that women have accepted the idea. Women ofinfluence in the workplaces are also fast to hire women in theseoccupations with the perception that they will perform better thanmen.

Gannon,Drew. How Men and Women Differ in the Workplace. TheFiscal Times, 25 May 2012. Web. 9 May 2012.

Player, Abigail. Gender Equality: Why Women Are Still Held Back. TheGuardian, 6 December 2013. Web. 9 May 2012.

Rosin, Hanna. The End of Men: And the Rise of Women . New York:Penguin, 2012. Print.

Wajcman, Judy. Managing Like a Man: Women and Men in Corporate Management .New Jersey: John Wiley &amp Sons, 2013. Print.

Wolf, Naomi. Thebeauty myth: How Images of Beauty are used Against Women . Canada:Random House, 2013. Print.

  Take 10% OFF— Expires in h m s Use code save10u during checkout.

Chat with us

• Live Chat Talk to a specialist
• Self-service options
• Search FAQs Fast answers, no waiting
• Ultius 101 New client? Click here
• Messenger  

International support numbers

For reference only, subject to Terms and Fair Use policies.

• How it Works

Learn more about us

• Future writers
• Explore further

Ultius Blog

Gender roles in the workplace.

Select network

Gender plays an important role in the workplace as women have worked towards equality for many years . There have been studies done to suggest that women's pay grades are lower with respect to men, but one other major issue is the role of gender in traditional offices. In other cultures like Japan, women are required to serve tea to men because it is a cultural tradition. However, nations like the United States have fostered more progressive means of delivering gender equality for women. The following sample expository sociology essay on gender roles in the workplace is part of a "field work" study where the behavior was observed and then reported.

Modern business not as bias

The modern business world has evolved to a place where one generally expects to see a fair depiction of the two genders working together with no apparent preference to having either more male or female employees. Upon fieldwork in an office setting to see the interactions between the female and male employees, however, it would still appear that gender roles play a large part in the daily operations in certain business environments. The fieldwork that was performed through direct observation gave an insight into the way in which an office created, maintained, and generally worked with the specific roles that had been given to certain members during a business meeting. The gender roles that had been identified and given to the office workers from the fieldwork show that the office is male dominated and that the female employees must act in a way that is submissive and passive to their male coworkers who have been labeled as authoritative figures to the females of the office. This is typical in traditional gender socialization and cultural settings.

Men more forceful at work

The information was gathered from observation in the office during daily interactions between the employees, specifically during a business meeting and from observation of the different employees’ cubicles. The location was the Sikorsky Company in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and the research was gathered on February 19th. The information was not gathered by interviews or surveys and was limited to direct observations from the interactions of the employees by the researcher. Based upon the observations collected from the interactions of the employees and the general investigation of the cubicles, general conclusions were drawn about the role of gender within this office setting. 

It is evident based upon the findings of the research that this particular office has very defined gender roles within it (an example of gender discrimination ). From the observations of the conference room, it can be concluded that the males hold the positions of authority and power within the office. Whenever a male was presenting a point or making an observation during the business meeting, they would make assertions about their own points and be very blunt and to the point on the manner such as saying “we should do X.”  

This differs from when a female would make a point in the meeting because she would ask in a much more passive tone and seek approval from the other employees with such statements as “I believe point X is the best choice, isn’t that right?” The females spoke generally in a much more approval-speaking manner. It was as though the female employees were taking the expressive role in the work environment, or that they were attempting to “cement relationships and provide emotional support and nurturing activities” (Lindsey). This is a common practice within household relationships and it appeared that the female employees of this office were taking that same role with their colleagues.  

Examples of gender roles in action

In addition to the females taking a more nurturing and supportive role, it would appear that they give the real authority in their office to the men. This became evident in the ways in which the males compared to the females would point out mistakes that were made by the individuals that made points or presented ideas during the meeting. The men would be straightforward and call out inconsistencies and flaws in the logic as they saw them; saying such statements as “no, that’s not right,” or “no, you’re wrong.” The females, on the other hand, would politely point out the mistakes they saw and bring them to the groups attention with such remarks as “so wait, is that right?” or “are you sure about that?”  What is clearly seen is the tried and true findings of gender and authority in the workplace.  From studies that have been performed over the last 20 years, it is consistently found that women have less authority than males in the workplace, and this office clearly backed this sort of evidence (Smith).

There were direct examples of the male authority that went beyond the manner in which the females and males chose how to interact verbally present at the office.  The women were put into some positions that were classic examples of tokenism within the workplace.  The women are put into specific roles of lesser importance and are seen as ‘tokens’ in these specific roles that are positions usually filled by a female employee (Zimmer).  In the case of this office, the male that was running the business meeting had a woman run the computer during his presentation even though she was not his assistant.  In this scenario, the woman played a specific role as the subservient gender that helped the male leader fill his role of running the meeting, showing that this female employee fit the role of a token in the workplace as an assistant to the male authority figure.  

The role of Female leaders in the workplace

This also raises questions about the role of female leaders in the workplace , specifically since this office space showed that females are clearly not seen as leaders or authority figures. Research has shown that in general though the female stereotype is changing in the workplace, the female authority figure is usually not present and discouraged in a group consisting of both men and women employees (Eagly & Karau).  This was shown further to be the case in terms of which employees were given company phones.  During the meeting, the members of the office with company phones had to put them on the conference room’s table incase they were needed during the course of the meeting. Only one female worker had a company phone whereas all of the males had one. This was an indicator that even though the employees were all on the same level of authority based upon their job titles, the men were valued as more of the leaders and authoritative figures and were given company phones to make contact with the clients of the business based on the idea that women are generally penalized for being assertive and becoming leaders in the workplace based on the gender status that has been assigned to them (Ridgeway).

Difference in compensation between men and women

One of the other major factors that showed the difference in gender in the office employees was the way in which the male and female workers appeared both in a physical sense and the way in which they shaped their personal workspaces within their cubicles. In terms of how the different gender employees dressed and presented themselves, it was apparent that two different motives went into their choices of wardrobe. Whereas the men choice clothing that were business appropriate, their major emphasis was clearly based on comfort and practicality of the articles of clothing. They would choose to wear button-ups or polos with slacks that were professional but clearly relatively comfortable and overwhelmingly chose a functional pair of dress shoes that were entirely based on functionality. This is completely different from the motives to the way the female employees dressed.  

They would wear clothes that were based on being presentable over functional and comfort such as high heels, jewelry, or tight fitting clothing. The office’s dress code was that of business casual meaning that both genders were not made to be overly dressed up for work, however it was worth noting that, as is common with many workplaces, the female employees were more dressed up than the males because of the mounted social expectations for females to appear looking the best in the public sphere (Whisner). This also is present in the way in which the cubicles of the employees are maintained.   The male employees generally had very bland office spaces that had few decorations unless the company had provided them and were simply a place for the employee to get their work done, whereas the female employee cubicle had a much more personalized touch to it with some of the female’s personal possessions present at their workplace.  

From the observations gathered, it is worth noting that there exist several important limiting factors. First and foremost, the sample size of this particular office is so small that no definite trends that are taken from it can apply to the workplace at large.  The number of employees here cannot accurately portray the entire workplace or serve as an example for workplaces in general because of its size. This research and observations made were entirely based upon this particular office and the role that gender played within it. Second, the employees themselves were not asked how they felt the roles of gender were present in the office. The observations generated and collected were made independently from the point of view of the employees as they were gathered from an outside party that merely watched the interactions.  Related to this, as an observer was present to record the office happenings, the interactions of the employees could have been altered as they were trying to appear the most professional as possible in order to impress the observer and not make themselves appear to be seen in a negative light.      

Understanding gender roles in the workplace

Based on the observations, it is clear that gender roles play a large factor in the office that was observed. It is clear that the females, when compared to the males in the office, take a much more subservient role and let the male employees have the authority and power in the office. The classic gender roles that have been embedded into society have clearly permeated and held true in the workplace between genders namely in terms of assigning roles of leadership and authority. Though the female stereotype is evolving and undergoing a dramatic reevaluation process, it is clear that in some place, such as the office that was observed from the field work, that there are certain places in the business world that have not yet realized the new roles that women clearly are capable and should be allowed to take. From these factors, it is evident that in the observed office that gender roles have been clearly associated between the male and female employees.

Works Cited

Eagly, Alice, and Steven Karau. "Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders." Psychological Review. 109.3 (2002): n. page. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. <http://web.pdx.edu/~mev/pdf/PS471_Readings_2012/Eagley_Karau.pdf>. 

Lindsey, L.L. The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005. 1-19. Print. 

Ridgeway, Cecilia. "Gender, Status, and Leadership." Journal of Social Issues. 57.4 (2001): n. page. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00233/abstract;jsessionid=7ECC7937AF60D0463A1BD26432402B7D.d04t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false>. 

Smith, Ryan. "Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace: Theory and Research." Annual Review of Sociology. 28. (2002): n. page. Print. <http://www.csun.edu/~snk1966/R.A. Smith - Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace -- Theory and Research.pdf>. 

Whisner, Mary. "Gender-Specific Clothing Regulation: A Study in Patriarchy." Harvard Women's Law. 5. (1982): n. page. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344762>.

Zimmer, Lynn. "Tokenism and Women in the Workplace: The Limits of Gender-Neutral Theory." Social Problems. 35.1 (1988): n. page. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/800667?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102098765957>.  

Cite This Post

This blog post is provided free of charge and we encourage you to use it for your research and writing. However, we do require that you cite it properly using the citation provided below (in MLA format).

Ultius, Inc. "Gender Roles in The Workplace." Ultius Blog . Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, 16 Mar. 2014. Web. <https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/gender-roles-in-the-workplace.html>

Thank you for practicing fair use.

This citation is in MLA format, if you need help with MLA format, click here to follow our citation style guide.

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/gender-roles-in-the-workplace.html

• Chicago Style

Ultius, Inc. "Gender Roles in The Workplace." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. Ultius Blog, 17 Mar. 2014. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/gender-roles-in-the-workplace.html

Copied to clipboard

Click here for more help with MLA citations.

Ultius, Inc. (2014, March 17). Gender Roles in The Workplace. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/gender-roles-in-the-workplace.html

Click here for more help with APA citations.

Ultius, Inc. "Gender Roles in The Workplace." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. March 17, 2014 https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/gender-roles-in-the-workplace.html.

Click here for more help with CMS citations.

Click here for more help with Turabian citations.

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing. 

Tested Daily

Click to Verify

About The Author

This post was written by Ultius.

• Writer Options
• Custom Writing
• Business Documents
• Support Desk
• +1-800-405-2972
• Submit bug report
• A+ BBB Rating!

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Connect with great American writers and get 24/7 support.

© 2024 Ultius, Inc.

• Refund & Cancellation Policy

Free Money For College!

Yeah. You read that right —We're giving away free scholarship money! Our next drawing will be held soon.

Our next winner will receive over $500 in funds. Funds can be used for tuition, books, housing, and/or other school expenses. Apply today for your chance to win!

* We will never share your email with third party advertisers or send you spam.

** By providing my email address, I am consenting to reasonable communications from Ultius regarding the promotion.

Past winner

• Name Samantha M.
• From Pepperdine University '22
• Studies Psychology
• Won $2,000.00
• Award SEED Scholarship
• Awarded Sep. 5, 2018

Thanks for filling that out.

Check your inbox for an email about the scholarship and how to apply.

Gender Roles In The Workplace Essay

Many researchers have re-examined this concept and started to question the direction they took with with this piece of research the most notable researches are Acker and Van houten because after their finding their findings which were to start with that the treatment of men and woman were different and in addition the recruitment process that took place was different. Because of this Acker and Van houten accused the original theorist of being biased and not taking this area into to consideration.

Related posts:

A systematic review of peer-reviewed gender literature in sustainability science

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 15 June 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Elisabeth Frank 1 ,
• Rike Mühlhaus 2 ,
• Katinka Malena Mustelin 3 ,
• Esther Lara Trilken 4 ,
• Noemi Katalin Kreuz 5 ,
• Linda Catharine Bowes 6 ,
• Lina Marie Backer 7 &
• Henrik von Wehrden 8  

325 Accesses

Explore all metrics

We conducted a systematic review of the available peer-reviewed literature that specifically focuses on the combination of sustainability and gender. We analyzed the existing peer-reviewed research regarding the extent to which gender plays a role in the empirical literature, how this is methodologically collected and what understanding of gender is applied in those articles. Our aim is to provide an overview of the current most common fields of research and thus show in which areas gender is already being included in the sustainability sciences and to what extent and in which areas this inclusion has not yet taken place or has only taken place to a limited extent. We identified 1054 papers that matched our criteria and conducted research on at least one sustainable development goal and gender research. Within these papers (i), the overall number of countries where lead authors were located was very high (91 countries). While the majority of lead authors were located in the Global North, less than a third of the articles were led by authors located in the Global South. Furthermore, gender is often just used as a category of empirical analysis rather than a research focus. We were able to identify (ii) a lack in coherent framing of relevant terms. Often no definition of sustainability was given, and only the sustainability goals (SDGs or MDGs) were used as a framework to refer to sustainability. Both gender and sustainability were often used as key words without being specifically addressed. Concerning the knowledge types of sustainability, our expectation that system knowledge dominates the literature was confirmed. While a problem orientation dominates much of the discourse, only a few papers focus on normative or transformative knowledge. (iii) Furthermore, the investigated literature was mainly contributing to few SDGs, with SDG 5 ‘Gender Equality’ accounting for 83% of all contributions, followed by SDG 8 ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’ (21%), SDG 3 ‘Good Health and Well-being’ (15%) and SDG 4 ‘Quality Education’ (12%). We were additionally able to identify seven research clusters in the landscape of gender in sustainability science. (iv) A broad range of diverse methods was utilized that allow us to approximate different forms of knowledge. Yet within different research clusters, the spectrum of methodologies is rather homogeneous. (v) Overall, in most papers gender is conceptualized in binary terms. In most cases, the research is explicitly about women, running the risk that gender research in sustainability sciences grows into a synonym for women's studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends

Climate change effects on vulnerable populations in the Global South: a systematic review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The progression of climate change and further environmental degradation have direct ecological and social consequences that affect and will affect people differently according to different structures of social inequality (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014 ; Johnson et al. 2022 ; Thompson-Hall et al. 2016 ). This insight is important insofar as it sheds light on the fact that environmental problems and climate change will not have the same effects globally, but are context specific and related to power and domination structures (see contextualized vulnerability O’Brien et al. 2007 ) and must therefore be analyzed accordingly (Hackfort 2015 ; Johnson et al. 2022 ). However, sustainability science is not only dedicated to analyzing the problems that we will face as a result of ecological exploitation in ecological, social and economic terms, but also attempts to develop solution-oriented strategies and provide policy advice (von Wehrden et al. 2017 ). Therefore, it is equally important to reflect this power and domination-critical perspective in the search for solution options and to include different stakeholders (Malin and Ryder 2018 ). One specific issue that should be analyzed in connection with sustainability science problems and solution development is gender. As many studies have already shown, the effects of climate change and other problems resulting from the exploitation of natural resources have a gender-specific (Dankelman 2010 ; Denton 2002 ; MacGregor 2010 ) or intersectional impact (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014 ; Johnson et al. 2022 ; Thompson-Hall et al. 2016 ). Even though the unequal impacts of, e.g., climate change in terms of gender have been researched empirically in many areas such as agriculture (Agarwal 1998 ; Alston and Whittenbury 2013 ; Glazebrook et al. 2020 ), migration (Chindarkar 2012 ; Lama et al. 2021 ) and natural disasters (Enarson and Chakrabarty 2009 ; Neumayer and Plümper 2007 ), to date there has been no systematic recording of the research field of gender in the sustainability sciences. Our focus in this review is to give a broad overview of the current state of art regarding the topic of gender in sustainability science. We analyze the existing research regarding the extent to which gender plays a role in the empirical literature, how this is methodologically collected and what understanding of gender is applied in those articles. Our aim is to provide an overview of the currently most common fields of research and thus show in which areas gender is already being included in the sustainability sciences and to what extent and in which areas this inclusion has not yet taken place or has only taken place to a limited extent. Before describing our research focus in more detail, we first define our two main concepts, namely sustainability and gender.

We refer to sustainability based on the widely quoted definition by the Brundtland report from 1987 as meeting present needs without compromising the ability to compromise the needs of future generations (Brundtland 1987 ). Furthermore, our sustainability understanding includes an integrational perspective, also referred to as nested circles model, meaning that sustainability builds on economic, social and ecological dimensions that are interdependent and interconnected (Lozano 2008 ; Odrowaz-Coates 2021 ). In this framework in opposition to others, the economic and social pillars are not independent from the environmental dimension, but instead depend on it (Mebratu 1998 ).

Sustainability science addresses the challenges that threaten the long-term security of societal development conditions by distinguishing three levels that need to be researched: the systemic level to create system knowledge, the normative level to map out target knowledge and the operative level that aims to develop transformative knowledge (Brandt et al. 2013 ; Grunwald 2007 ; Michelsen and Adomßent 2014 ). System knowledge aims at describing and understanding a given social and/or ecological system via descriptive analysis. This often is disciplinary empirical research to analyze the dynamics, root causes and underlying mechanisms of the identified problem or system. System knowledge tries to reflect the current state of a system and its ability to change (Brandt et al. 2013 ; Grunwald 2007 ; von Wehrden et al. 2017 ; Wiek and Lang 2016 ). After identifying a problem and being able to describe it, target or normative knowledge is important to indicate the perception and direction of change. By asking what a desirable future situation could look like, target knowledge provides an orientation and an aim toward the development of solution options. This knowledge is normative since it asks which values are important when developing solutions to the identified problem (Grunwald 2007 ; von Wehrden et al. 2017 ). To then be able to address real-world place-based problems, transformative or action-oriented knowledge is necessary. By developing evidence-supported solutions, transformative knowledge offers possible transition paths from the current to the desirable situation (Grunwald 2007 ; von Wehrden et al. 2017 ; Wiek and Lang 2016 ). This action-oriented knowledge which aims at solving and mitigating the identified context-specific problem represents the main gap to this day (von Wehrden et al. 2017 ). While there are diverse and multi-faceted approaches in sustainability science (Clark and Harley 2019 ), we use the sustainable development goals as a lens of analysis. We agree that the conceptual foundation of sustainability is very diverse, and have mentioned the root literature above. However, the sustainable development goals can be seen as a main policy basis that currently attempts to shift the world toward a more sustainable development. While we agree that many conceptual foundations exist to this end, we focus on the SDGs since these contain a diversity of topical focuses, including gender.

Within the domain of sustainability, this review focuses on the diverse scientific literature published under the term of ‘gender’. We refer to gender as a historical construct consisting of attributes, norms, roles, opportunities, responsibilities and expectations that are socially, culturally and institutionally embedded and produce certain gender identities and social constructs (Arevalo 2020 ; Lieu et al. 2020 ; Mechlenborg and Gram-Hanssen 2020 ). Consequently, gender is not ‘given’ but learned and therefore dynamic and changing across a diverse and fluid spectrum (Curth and Evans 2011 ; Moyo and Dhliwayo 2019 ). Furthermore, we acknowledge the ‘intersectional’ nature of gender, i.e., the idea that one’s gendered experience of life overlaps and interacts with other axes of identity and systems of oppression (Richardson 2015 ).

Gender and environment

Now that we have defined the two core concepts of this article, sustainability and gender, we proceed to briefly summarize the state of research on gender in environmental and sustainability sciences. Before sustainability was declared a central part of international development in the 1990s and gender issues were incorporated in those development frameworks from the early 2000s, activists and researchers drew attention to the links between environmental degradation and gender inequality as early as the 1970s, with a particular focus on the disadvantages faced by women (Levy 1992 ; Mehta 2016 ). This early field of research called ecofeminism postulated an intrinsic relationship between women and nature based on their shared reproductive capacity (Majumdar 2019 ). Ecofeminism unites many currents and movements. Some of these take up an essentialist and biologistic understanding of gender, e.g., Shiva ( 1988 ), Mies and Shiva ( 1995 ), Agarwal ( 1992 ), Hackfort ( 2015 ). Women are understood as caring and nurturing by nature and at the same time suppressed by patriarchy as always being inferior and dominated by men (Agarwal 1992 ). Ecofeminists identified that the exploitation of women as well as of nature occurs in similar patterns, which is why it was assumed that "all women would have the same kind of sympathies and understandings of environmental change as a consequence of their close connection to nature [as well as their shared experience in exploitation]" (Majumdar 2019 , p. 72). Politically, these arguments and claims were taken up by the Women in Development (WID) approach which was adopted by many development agencies and NGOs in the 1970s. They argued that because of women's unique relationship with the environment as well as their particular affection by the effects of environmental degradation, women should receive special attention in global economic development (Levy 1992 ; Mehta 2016 ; Sasser 2018 ). Over the years, the arguments and theories of the essentialist view of ecofeminism outlined above have been widely criticized (e.g., Agarwal 1992 ). Many feminist researchers have pointed out that concepts of nature and gender are socially and historically constructed and not biologically determined (Agarwal 1992 ; Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Levy 1992 ). Furthermore, the depiction of women as a unitary was declared insufficient, as gender must be considered and analyzed in combination with other forms of oppression such as race, class, caste and so on (Agarwal 1992 ; Häusler 1997 ; Levy 1992 ).

What is disputed, however, is not that the oppressive relationship between gender and nature exists, but how it is justified and how it should be responded to Gottschlich et al. ( 2022 ). One of the most recited critiques stems from the Indian economist Bina Agarwal ( 1992 ), who, instead of an essentialist derived connection between nature and gender, adopts a materialist perspective to describe the link between Indian women and the environment (Agarwal 1992 ; Gottschlich et al. 2022 ). Agarwal points out that a gendered and class-based organization of production, reproduction and distribution results in differential access to natural resources and ecological processes (Agarwal 1992 ). For example, women’s responsibility for certain natural resources is based on the gendered division of labor as well as class-specific ownership and property relations. This ascription can also be seen as dependence of women on these natural resources to make a living, which often entails a greater sensitivity to the respective ecological processes (Agarwal 1992 ; Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Sasser 2018 ). Agarwal terms this research perspective ‘feminist environmentalism’ (Agarwal 1992 ). As a further development of feminist environmentalism, feminist political ecology (FPE) emerged in the 1990s, which takes a more holistic, intersectional perspective regarding gender on the connections between gender and nature (see for example Rocheleau et al. 1996 ; Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Sasser 2018 ). FPE focuses explicitly on gender-specific power relations, which are considered in their historical, political and economic contexts, as well as across a range of scales (Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Mehta 2016 ). Possible research foci include, for example, gender-specific access to natural resources and an intersectional and decolonial approach to environmental degradation and ecological change, as well as ecological conservation and sustainable development (Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Mehta 2016 ; Sasser 2018 ). FPE questions the so far dominating victimizing narratives and stereotypes of women often from the Global South and emphasize instead their agency in, for example, highlighting their resistance practices and activism (MacGregor 2020 ). As research from feminist environmentalism and feminist political ecology has broadened the perspective on the connections between gender and the environment, new approaches have also been sought at the international political level. The focus and programs now shifted toward gender and development (GAD) which addresses all genders. GAD approaches also acknowledge socially constructed gender roles as the cause for gender inequality and aim at creating different forms of empowerment from a grassroots, bottom-up perspective that includes, for example, women as active participants in development from the beginning (Sasser 2018 ). The last concept which we want to highlight is queer ecology that was developed from the 2010s onward, e.g., Mortimer-Sandilands and Erickson ( 2010 ). Queer ecology analyzes and critically reflects the dominant human–environment relationships in terms of the underlying heteronormative order of the gender binary. The queer perspective expands feminist political ecology by deconstructing the 'naturalness' of heterosexual desire and the associated heteronormative relations of reproduction and production. The queer theoretical perspective questions the heterosexual nuclear family as the basic economic unit of the household and instead expands the view of social re-production by focusing on queer care relationships (Bauhardt 2022 ; Hofmeister et al. 2012 ).

Gender and sustainability

Research integrating gender as well as insights and theories from gender studies into sustainability science is relatively new and as we will see is not yet an established cornerstone in this research field. Nevertheless, scholars so far have already presented some important aspects as to why and how gendered perspectives should be integrated into sustainability science. Both gender studies and sustainability science are inherently normative sciences. They aim both at system knowledge about existing inequalities and unsustainable structures and their causes, but at the same time also gaining transformational knowledge about how inequalities can be reduced and resolved to create a more just world (Hofmeister et al. 2012 ). Both research fields position themselves as inter- and transdisciplinary and furthermore conduct their research across different scales, spatial as well as temporal (Bürkner 2012 ; Jerneck et al. 2011 ; Martens 2006 ; Rodenberg 2009 ). Feminist analyses and the integration of gender into sustainability science can however help integrate social and historical contexts more comprehensively in the analysis of socio-ecological systems as well as contribute to the development of suitable policy instruments for reducing gender inequalities and expanding adaptive capacities by contributing a social science perspective (Hackfort 2015 ; Hofmeister et al. 2012 ; Littig 2002 ). Feminist scholarship especially enhances sustainability science research by including analysis of power relations. Research interests within sustainability science should uncover the prevalent power relations in nature–society relationships and deconstruct them at various levels (Hackfort 2015 ; Hofmeister et al. 2012 ). Furthermore, feminist analysis critiques the claims of objective, universal and (gender) neutral scientific research and instead emphasizes the generation of situated knowledge that adopts partial perspectives which cannot be understood in isolation from its context (Hofmeister et al. 2012 ).

While the concept of gender is already explored within some research areas of sustainability science literature (Eger et al. 2022 ; Khalikova et al. 2021 ; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2014 ), the current state of the art remains widely unclear (Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Hackfort 2015 ).

Research interests

Thus, in this paper, we explore the heterogeneous research area of gender in sustainability science by means of a systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed literature to identify prevalent research foci, trends and gaps. We focus on five research interests outlined in the following.

Bibliometric indicators

Firstly, we create a bibliometric overview of the scientific literature on gender in sustainability, thereby giving an account of the geographic origins, contexts and affiliations of authors as well as geographic tendencies concerning both authorships and study locations. Moreover, we closely examine definitions and perceptions of gender within the given research. Here, we differentiate between two applications: (1) gender as a specific empirical category and (2) gender as the general research topic. We focus on analyzing whether articles use gender as one of several variables in their empirical research or focus on gender as a central research topic. Our aim here is to examine whether research to date has addressed gender in a rather superficial way or whether and in which cases deeper analyses of gender and sustainability are taking place.

Sustainability definitions

Our second research interest centers around specific definitions of sustainability, which we acknowledge to be diverse and often incoherent within the available literature. We examine which sustainability concepts are predominantly used in the reviewed articles as well as if and how sustainability is defined. By identifying the diverse understandings of sustainability within gender research, we explore the different ways that specific concepts of sustainability and gender are intertwined. In addition, we link these notions to the three knowledge types we described above, system, target and transformative knowledge. These different types of knowledge are all important when conducting transdisciplinary research as is done in sustainability science (Wiek and Lang 2016 ). They all fulfill important steps when approaching wicked problems such as climate change or gender equality and build the basis for a comprehensive understanding which is needed when dealing with multifaceted and complex problems (von Wehrden et al. 2017 ). Our research interest is to analyze what kind of knowledge there is already in regard to gender in sustainability science and to present a state of the art which knowledge types are prevalent and which need more attention in the future. To this end, we assume that systemic, descriptive knowledge (Brandt et al. 2013 ; CASS et al. 1997 ) is decreasing over time, yet still expect to find overall less papers creating target or transformative knowledge.

Sustainable development goals and gender equality

Thirdly, we focus our scope of research on articles linked to at least one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (United Nations 2015 ). Building on and extending the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs provide an umbrella of sectors which the examined research articles can be attributed to and/or associate themselves with. The SDGs were agreed on by the United Nations as “a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centered set of universal and transformative Goals and targets” (United Nations 2015 ). Applying the lens of the SDGs allows us to narrow down the range of articles related to sustainability, while acknowledging they do not provide an ultimate, but a prominent framework. In view of the SDGs as forming an entity of interlinked targets which are aimed at fostering simultaneous, overarching developments (Toth et al. 2022 ), we want to find out whether the papers are equally distributed to the SDGs or whether a few SDGs are dominating the discourse. This approach makes it possible to compare the number of research articles on gender associated with individual goals as well as to highlight clusters of SDGs which are prevalently mentioned together. By deriving research areas which are represented in a smaller share, we identify possible future areas to focus on.

In the fourth research interest, we concentrate on the methods used in the reviewed articles. Research within gender studies and feminist research are dominated by qualitative methods. Many scholars investigate their research interests regarding gender and gender equality by applying qualitative methods which document the subjects’ experiences and perspectives in their own terms (Gaybor 2022 ; Harcourt and Argüello Calle 2022 ). We determine clusters of methods used and how these connect to the knowledge types of sustainability and also to the respective SDGs that each article targets. Based on that, we are able to specify certain research clusters which can be grouped according to their generated knowledge and applied methods as well as thematic focus. This gives us information about which methods dominate in which research fields, to what extent they differ and which methods have not been used much to date.

Definition and understanding of gender

Finally, we aim to draw conclusions on definitions and understandings of gender in sustainability science and how these have changed over time. There cannot be a general historical account of the understanding of gender as it must always be specific to societies, cultures and regions of the world. For instance, the Western academic understanding of gender has undergone certain fundamental changes in the past century (Haig 2004 ; Muehlenhard and Peterson 2011 ). In this paper, we focus on two changes, namely (i) the constructivist turn which conceptualizes gender as not biologically determined in a binary of man and woman, but instead socially constructed (Fenstermaker 2013 ; West and Zimmerman 1987 ) and (ii) the acknowledgment of the ‘intersectional’ nature of gender (Bürkner 2012 ), i.e., the idea that one’s gendered experience of life overlaps and interacts with other axes of identity and systems of oppression (Crenshaw 1989 ; Richardson 2015 ). We explore if these important developments in the understanding of gender are reflected in the temporal distribution of the reviewed literature. Moreover, we detect correlations between (non-)binary, (non-)intersectional understandings of gender and research clusters/fields of sustainability.

In this review, we attempt to systematize a complex and heterogeneous field of research, which is why we are aware that this aim entails the risk of uncovering inconsistencies, renewing them or even creating them. We do not claim that our research interests and choice of methods are the ‘correct’ ones to systematically assess the topic of gender in sustainability science, but rather to provide an overview of which topics and methods have dominated the field of research to date, how these can be located in light of sustainability science concepts such as knowledge types or the SDGs as well as how individual international contributions can be used constructively for the further development of the subject area.

The paper is organized as follows. In section two, we describe the methods used, followed by the presentation of our results in section three. In section four, we discuss these results and give an account of their methodological limitations. Finally, we conclude by reflecting upon the results of this review and postulate future research implications.

Our systematic literature review was based on a quantitative bibliometric content analysis of the available literature. We thus created a broad overview of the state of the literature, with a particular focus on the key interests named in the introduction.

We identified articles via the Scopus database (Elsevier B.V 2020 ). Scopus was chosen as it contains natural science as well as social science articles. Additionally, Scopus allows for the search and preview of abstracts, which was helpful for conducting the systematic review.

We applied a search string containing the two words ‘gender AND sustainab*’. The initial search resulted in 5993 papers for the period of 1991–2021. We restricted our search to this time period because hardly any literature was available before, and most journals have no online record before. We excluded books, conference papers and book chapters and limited the review to articles that were published in English.

Inductively we created the following criteria: the included articles must

be able to be assigned to at least one SDG and

have gender as a research focus, and not only as a category of analysis.

Since the review focuses on gender in sustainability science, we needed at least two criteria for the inclusion of the articles. For one, the paper should make a clear link to sustainability, since this term is often used as a buzzword and we tried to exclude any literature that mentioned the concept only vaguely or in passing, such as in the first part of the introduction of the latter parts of the discussion. Regarding the first exclusion criteria, we decided to use the SDGs as one possible framework that reflects our understanding of sustainability science topics, and that can be seen as the current policy baseline. For our analysis, this meant in practical terms that we checked whether the topic of an article could be assigned to at least one SDG and, if so, which one. The extent to which the article addresses the SDGs themselves did not play a role here.

The second criterion to include a paper in the full-text analysis refers to the realization of gender. When conducting a pre-test with a random sample of articles, we realized that many articles just used gender as one of many variables in their empirical research and that the focus of the research question lay upon something completely different, where gender was a mere building block or one of many variables. To be able to narrow down our sample, we decided to only include articles that focus on gender as a central research interest. Therefore, we always read the respective abstracts to be able to determine whether a thorough research focus on gender was given or not.

Based on these criteria, we excluded 4959 articles. The remaining 1054 papers were coded according to the following five questions:

Does the article create system knowledge, target knowledge and/or transformative knowledge? The definitions for the three individual types of knowledge were extracted and applied from various articles, as already detailed in the introduction (see: Brandt et al. 2013 ; Grunwald 2007 ; Michelsen and Adomßent 2014 ).

Which SDGs can be assigned to the article? Which sustainability concepts and definitions were named?

Which methods were used in the article? We inductively grouped the respective methods into categories.

Does the article conceptualize gender as binary, as non-binary and/or as social constructs?

Does the article consider gender as the only category of analysis? Were further social categories addressed as well or is there an intersectional approach? Other social categories were specified in such cases.

A team of seven coders worked on the literature review in an iterative process. We coded the papers separately as well as together and clarified possible pitfalls in the criteria to minimize ambiguities. The respective categories were then summarized in a table which was the basis of all statistical analysis of the content.

Furthermore, we are interested in investigating whether there are specific research clusters within the domain of gender in sustainability science. Our aim is to identify the dominant fields of research that deal with gender and sustainability and to characterize these in more detail on the basis of the above-mentioned research interests. To derive groups out of the reviewed papers, we used a linguistic approach that classifies all papers into groups based on their word abundance. Within this analysis, we compiled all words in a document containing all papers, and the respective x–y table was clustered into groups according to Ward ( 1963 ). To visualize the respective groups, we used a detrended correspondence analysis (Abson et al. 2014 ), which allows for a descriptive analysis of the linguistic patterns of the literature. The groups were illustrated by significant indicator words that we identified by an indicator species analysis. Based on this multivariate linguistic approach, we derived seven unbiased groups of the reviewed literature, which are solemnly based on the word abundance of the papers. All statistical analyses were conducted with the R Statistical Software (v4.2.2; R Core Team 2022 ).

We identified a total of 1054 papers, out of which almost half were published after 2017 (48%) (Fig.  1 ).

Total numbers of papers published per year

While some journals contain a relatively high proportion of papers (e.g., Sustainability 65 articles, Gender and Development 31 articles, World Development 21 articles, Gender, Place and Culture 14 articles, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14 articles), there is no dominating journal, and articles are published in a total of 566 journals. Lead authors originate mainly from the USA (19.9%), UK (11.5%), Australia (5.8%), Canada (4.6%), India (4.5%), South Africa (4.4%), Spain (4.3%) and Germany (4.2%). Lead authors from Sweden, Netherlands, Nigeria, Italy, China, Austria, Indonesia, South Korea, Denmark, Turkey, Norway and Switzerland published more than 1%, but less than 4% of the papers. All other countries have less than 1% of the lead authors in proportion (see online appendix 1). These numbers must be interpreted particularly in the aspect that only English articles were included in the analysis.

The vast majority of the papers (844) are empirical, and 113 papers utilize gender as a category within the empirical analysis. Roughly, a third of all the articles analyze gender in combination with other social categories. The most researched intersection is between gender and class (also specified as income differences), followed by the intersection between gender and race. Concerning the utilization of the SDGs, 83% of all papers research on Gender Equality (SDG 5). Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8) is included in 20% of all papers. Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3) and Quality Education (SDG 4) are mentioned by about 15% of all papers. All other SDGs are mentioned by less than 10% of the papers (Table 1 ).

The majority of concrete definitions regarding sustainability built on the SDGs (137); the Millennium Goals are mentioned by some 40 papers, the Brundtland report by 23, Agenda 21 by 16, while all other frameworks such as the Kyoto protocol (2), national strategies (2), Rio declaration (2), IPCC (1), the Three Pillar Framework (1), Corporate Sustainability (1) and Club of Rome (1) are mentioned less often. Concerning the knowledge types, system knowledge clearly dominates, with stronger ties to normative knowledge and slightly weaker ties to transformative knowledge. All three types of knowledge are only achieved by few (31) papers (Fig. 2 ).

Distribution of knowledge types

Concerning the use of scientific methods, the most abundantly applied methods are literature reviews (22.5%), closely followed by interviews (22%). Statistical approaches are used by 12,7% of the papers, closely followed by methods of participatory research (10.4%), case study approaches (10.6%) and surveys (9.8%). Other methods are less abundantly used, including ethnographic approaches (3.6%), discourse or content analysis (2.7%) or systematic literature review (2.7%) (Fig. 3 ).

Percentage of papers using certain scientific methods

The majority of papers consider a binary gender understanding. While there was an increase in the absolute total number of papers that considered a socially constructed gender understanding overall, the proportion of papers falling into this category did decrease.

In the following section, we introduce the different groups derived from multivariate analysis, and present key characteristics of the individual groups (Fig.  4 ).

Research clusters with number of relevant contributions and the five most significant words that statistically indicate the research clusters

Cluster 1: gender equality and institutions

The first cluster, which contains 207 papers, emerged first in 1991 and is thus the oldest cluster. The proportion of articles displays a diverse activity, having peaked in 2020. The research focuses on the institutional commitment toward gender equality (Hennebry et al. 2019 ; Kalpazidou Schmidt et al. 2020 ; Larasatie et al. 2020 ). The topical focus encompasses entrepreneurship (Kamberidou 2020 ; Kravets et al. 2020 ; Vershinina et al. 2020 ), especially concerning the empowerment of women in social enterprises (Allen et al. 2019 ; Benítez et al. 2020 ; Green 2019 ), yet also research regarding peace building (Adjei 2019 ; Kim 2020 ; Turner 2020 ), foreign policy (Agius and Mundkur 2020 ; Cohn and Duncanson 2020 ) and security (Curth and Evans 2011 ; Mahadevia and Lathia 2019 ; Rothermel 2020 ) is conducted. These focal points are reflected in the usage of the most mentioned SDGs, 8 (decent work), 10 (reduced inequalities), and 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). About one-quarter of the articles channel sustainability through SDGs and MDGs or the Brundtland report as well as the Agenda 21. The research questions of nearly all articles aim at generating system knowledge, yet more than half of them also create normative knowledge. Besides gender, half of the papers include other social categories in their analysis, mostly focusing on class, race, sexuality and ethnicity. A binary gender framing is mainly used, yet one-quarter of the articles acknowledge gender to be a social construct. Most of the papers are qualitative case studies utilizing interviews or ethnographic approaches.

Cluster 2: gender in health and well-being

The second cluster, consisting of 165 papers, emerged in 2003 and is closely related to the first and the 6th cluster. The topical focus of this cluster is on health equity and the impacts of gender on health services (Manandhar et al. 2018 ; Scheer et al. 2016 ; Thresia 2018 ), for instance concerning the evaluation or assessment of health programs (Friedson-Ridenour et al. 2019 ; Williams et al. 2009 ). Next to barrier identification (Kennedy et al. 2020 ; Sawade 2014 ; Sciortino 2020 ) and empowerment strategy assessment (Maluka et al. 2020 ; Plouffe et al. 2020 ; Yount et al. 2020 ), system knowledge is created through qualitative assessment strategies such as methods of participatory research and interviews. A considerable number of papers discussed health equity also in terms of motherhood, especially maternal health and maternal mortality rates were covered often (Klugman et al. 2019 ; Morgan et al. 2017 ). One-quarter of the articles reference sustainability through SDGs and MDGs. About one-third of the articles also apply other social categories in their analysis, mostly adding the concept of class but also ethnicity, race and religion. While the papers in this cluster widely build on a binary gender framework, many concern gender inequalities, especially aiming at low- and middle-income countries and communities.

Cluster 3: gendered access to resources

Cluster number three, which contains 244 papers, started to emerge in 1995, with the majority of papers being published between 2017 and 2020. According to the word abundance analysis, this cluster partly overlaps with cluster number two and six. On the one hand, the papers in this cluster focus on the assessment of inequalities and gender-specific barriers. Specifically, they examine the structural discrimination as well as underrepresentation of women in certain areas (Crockett and Cooper 2016 ; Ennaji 2016 ; Lama et al. 2017 ; Woodroffe 2015 ). Two areas that are analyzed most often are the limited access to specific natural resources respective institutions such as water (Andajani-Sutjahjo et al. 2015 ; Pandya and Shukla 2018 ; Singh and Singh 2015 ), energy (Burney et al. 2017 ), education (Ansong et al. 2018 ) and healthcare (Rivillas et al. 2018 ; Theobald et al. 2017 ). Secondly, the limited and ineffective opportunities to participate in decision-making processes, for example, in politics (Dyer 2018 ; Lama et al. 2017 ; Sindhuja and Murugan 2018 ), agriculture (Azanaw and Tassew 2017 ) and at the workplace (Limuwa and Synnevåg 2018 ; Rohe et al. 2018 ). The identification of different challenges which women face in regard to participation and representation clash with the fact that the women in these cases often bear the responsibility for survival and sustainability of the respective community (Belahsen et al. 2017 ; Garutsa and Nekhwevha 2016 ; Limuwa and Synnevåg 2018 ; Rohe et al. 2018 ). Apart from this problem-oriented focus creating system knowledge, quite many articles in this cluster offer evidence-based recommendations and solution strategies on how to improve those inequalities by suggesting possible areas of intervention such as enforcing legislation, mentorship, quotas, financial inclusion, etc. (Ansong et al. 2018 ; Appiah 2015 ; Burney et al. 2017 ; Mello and Schmink 2017 ; Saviano et al. 2017 ). The authors emphasize that adaptation strategies and policy-making must be gender sensitive and critically reflect gender-specific circumstances, vulnerabilities and experiences (Garai 2016 ; Rakib et al. 2017 ; Rivillas et al. 2018 ; Shanthi et al. 2017 ; Theobald et al. 2017 ). Some papers channel sustainability through SDGs and MDGs or the Brundtland report as well as the Agenda 21. About 50 papers focus on class or caste, race, ethnicity and religion as categories apart from gender. A binary gender framing is mostly used, and studies are predominantly qualitative case studies utilizing interviews, surveys or methods of participatory research.

Cluster 4: gender inequality in public infrastructure

Cluster four contains 191 papers with first publications in 1997 and the majority of the papers being published between 2017 and 2020. The thematic focus of this cluster lies upon gender inequality in public infrastructure. The articles mainly apply a problem-oriented lens while addressing different areas of gender discrimination in which safe, affordable and sustainable access to certain institutions of public infrastructure is not given. Three areas are analyzed most often: gendered mobility investigates gender differences in travel patterns and modal split (Abasahl et al. 2018 ; Winslott Hiselius et al. 2019 ; Kawgan-Kagan 2020 ; Le et al. 2019 ; Mitra and Nash 2019 ; Polk 2003 ), gendered barriers in public transportation (Al-Rashid et al. 2020 ; Malik et al. 2020 ; Montoya-Robledo and Escovar-Álvarez 2020 ) as well as gender discrimination within transport planning and policy-making (Kronsell et al. 2016 , 2020 ; Wallhagen et al. 2018 ). The second area discusses gendered access to healthcare, mostly referring to services providing counseling and treatment for victims of gender-based violence (Betron et al. 2020 ; Minckas et al. 2020 ; Prego-Meleiro et al. 2020 ), sexual and reproductive health rights (Bosmans et al. 2008 ; Lince-Deroche et al. 2019 ; Loganathan et al. 2020 ) and HIV prevention as well as treatment (Gómez 2011 ; Ssewamala et al. 2019 ). The third area analyzes gendered access to education (Burridge et al. 2016 ; Islam and Siddiqui 2020 ). The majority of the papers create systemic knowledge. Notably, many papers are published in the journal ‘Sustainability’ and several articles contain ‘women’ in the papers’ title. A few articles reference sustainability by mentioning the SDGs and the Brundtland report. About 40 papers mention interlinkages with other types of social categories and do not solely focus on gender in their analysis. The gender framing is mostly binary. The methodology in this cluster utilizes most often literature reviews or case studies conducting interviews or surveys.

Cluster 5: gender inequalities in agricultural systems

This cluster consists of 102 papers, and dates back to 1995. Since 2017, its contribution is slowly increasing. The research within this cluster can be grouped into four aspects and widely generates system knowledge. The majority of the research focuses on gender roles and how these influence interactions with(in) local systems such as forestry (Benjamin et al. 2018 ; Nhem and Lee 2019 ; Stiem and Krause 2016 ), agriculture (Drafor et al. 2005 ; Ergas 2014 ; Fischer et al. 2017 ), fisheries (Tejeda and Townsend 2006 ; Szymkowiak and Rhodes-Reese 2020 ; Torell et al. 2019 ), water (Imburgia 2019 ; Singh 2006 , 2008 ) and the energy sector (Buechler et al. 2020 ; Stock 2021 ; Wiese 2020 ). One topical focus is about participation of women in decision-making and planning processes (Ihalainen et al. 2020 ; Mulema et al. 2019 ; Pena et al. 2020 ). Another focus aims at gender differences in climate adaptation and conservation strategies (Abdelali-Martini et al. 2008 ; Rao et al. 2020 ; Wekesah et al. 2019 ). Furthermore, many papers investigate challenges women face in (agricultural) resource control and management (Badstue et al. 2020 ; Pehou et al. 2020 ) as well as in the access to markets and the distribution of land (Holden and Tilahun 2020 ; Meinzen-Dick et al. 1997 ). Lastly, a considerable number of papers discuss gendered climate vulnerabilities and risk management (Friedman et al. 2019 ; Yadav and Lal 2018 ; Ylipaa et al. 2019 ). These research interests are also reflected in the mentioned SDGs, which are 15 (life on land), 8 (decent work), 2 (zero hunger) and 1 (no poverty). Only very few papers channel sustainability through SDGs and MDGs. About one-third of the articles also include other social categories in their research, mostly adding the concept of class but also religion, age, race and ethnicity. Regarding the understanding of gender about 10% perceive gender to be a social and cultural construct and only one mentions a non-binary understanding of gender. The majority of the papers conduct qualitative case studies, often combined with interviews, surveys or methods of participatory research. Papers within this cluster mostly report about local projects conducted in low- and middle-income countries of the Global South.

Cluster 6: inclusion of gender equality in sustainable development

Cluster six contains 45 articles and emerged in 1992. The number of published papers within this cluster fluctuated widely over the years, yet since 2019 the proportional contribution is slowly increasing. In contrast to the other clusters, the papers in this group are not centered around a certain topic, but rather focus on a general discussion regarding the inclusion of gender issues in research on sustainable development, yet here scholars mainly apply problem-oriented empirical research on gender inequalities, discrimination and biases often on a national scale. Those gender inequalities are often referred to as gender gap and focus mostly on political representation (Azmi 2020 ; Kreile 2005 ; Purwanti et al. 2018 ; von Dach 2002 ), access to education (Assoumou-ella 2019 ; Cortina 2010 ; Cheng and Ghajarieh 2011 ; Suvarna et al. 2019 ) and participation in natural resource management (Sasaki and Chopin 2002 ; Valdivia and Gilles 2001 ; Yadav and Sharma 2017 ). These topical areas also overlap with the mentioned SDGs, 4 (quality education), 8 (decent work), 3 (good health and well-being) and 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Gender equality is thus highlighted as one of the most important tasks in sustainable development. A few articles reference sustainability by mentioning the SDGs and the Brundtland report. About 20% of the articles also add further social categories apart from gender when analyzing inequalities in sustainable development. Besides gender, most of these focus on race and class. While a mere half of the papers in this cluster are conceptual, the rest conduct mainly qualitative case studies utilizing interviews, surveys and methods of participatory research. Studies range across the global and the country or local level.

Cluster 7: gender diversity and corporate performance

The last cluster is a recently emerging research area with contributions starting from the year 2016 onward. The 44 contributions in this cluster focus on human resource characteristics, primarily the gender diversity of boards (Orazalin and Baydauletov 2020 ; Romano et al. 2020 ; Xie et al. 2020 ) and the sustainable performance of firms or other organizations (Burkhardt et al. 2020 ; Mungai et al. 2020 ; Ozordi et al. 2020 ). The cluster as such is very homogenous with many contributions sharing similarly phrased research questions and a local approach that is reflected in either the focus on organizations in a certain geographic region or of a specific economic sector. This is also reflected in the most often mentioned SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth). Nevertheless, two research angles can be differentiated within this cluster which both contribute to create system knowledge: one angle investigates the relationship between gender representation and indicators of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Tapver et al. 2020 ; Valls et al. 2020 ; Yarram and Adapa 2021 ), corporate environmental performance or specific sustainable policies (Birindelli et al. 2019 ; Elmagrhi et al. 2018 ; García Martín and Herrero 2020 ), while another more economic angle investigates the relationship between gender representation and the limitation of risks for ‘sustainable’ i.e., continuous growth (Gudjonsson et al. 2020 ; Loukil et al. 2019 ; Suciu et al. 2020 ). In their findings, most papers tend to highlight gender-(binary-)based differences in morality or ethics. There is no intersectional approach or other social categories in the articles, as well as nearly no sustainability references. The majority of the papers conducted quantitative research utilizing statistics.

In the introduction, we set out five research interests for this systematic literature review. Based on the research clusters, we revisit these focal points and embed our findings into the current debate.

(i) Regarding bibliometric data, while the overall number of countries with lead authors is very high with 91 countries, there is a tendency that the majority of lead authors are from the Global North, and less than a third of the articles are led by authors located in the Global South. This depicts an overall determined imbalance of publication origins as shown by Blicharska et al. ( 2017 ), Collyer ( 2018 ), Jeffery ( 2014 ), Karlsson et al. ( 2007 ) and Rokaya et al. ( 2017 ). Previous accounts found a domination of SDG-related publications from European regions (Sweileh 2020 ). Within our analysis, all of the countries from which most lead authors come are listed OECD countries and can thus be described as belonging widely to the Global North (Blicharska et al. 2017 ), underlining the data gap between the Global North and the Global South (Karlsson et al. 2007 ). A comparable imbalance was found regarding the countries most affected by climate change which are equally underrepresented in environmental science (Blicharska et al. 2017 ). This is even more pronounced since researchers from the Global North tend to hold higher posts within research teams, compared to those from the Global South (Jeffery 2014 ). Such power imbalances can, however, be tackled by a higher contextual transparency in the research conduct (Maina-Okori et al. 2018 ), and other SDG-aimed research reviews show a similar bias toward the European regions (Sweileh 2020 ), while for instance SDG 5 was least researched in the Western Pacific regions. Deeper contextual information is often omitted in research papers due to the demand in brevity; there are counterexamples that incorporate the author's background into the research context (Maina-Okori et al. 2018 ).

The proportion of papers that utilizes gender as a research focus was less than 10% and thus relatively low. Based on the word-driven analysis, we identify clear groups differentiated based on the topical focus, methodological approaches and theoretical foundation. The literature ranges from rather qualitative and discourse-oriented approaches to more survey and interview-driven literature. A second gradient in the literature ranges across different systems, for instance from agricultural systems to different organizations and their development.

(ii) Concerning our second research interest, we identify a lack in coherent framing of relevant terms. Often no definition of sustainability is given, and only the sustainability goals (SDGs or MDGs) are used as a framework to refer to sustainability. With other diverse sources such as the Brundtland report and the WCED 1987 as well as the Agenda 21 and the Rio Conference 1992 being cited to define the sustainability understanding of the respective paper, it is clear that a coherent and uniting framing of sustainability science is still lacking in this specific scientific literature. After all, these sources are quite old, and much has been published since (e.g., Clark 2007 , etc.). One article we want to highlight that situates itself both within sustainability science and includes a gendered perspective is by Ong et al. ( 2020 ). They classified their research on queer identities within tourism and leisure research as social sustainability, arguing that social sustainability advocates equal opportunities and human rights for both individual and social well-being (Ong et al. 2020 ). Another paper which we want to mention is that by Maina-Okori et al. ( 2018 ) because it argues from a perspective that was taken up very little by the analyzed articles. They call for the inclusion of Black feminist thought and Indigenous knowledge in sustainability science research as well as the reflection on colonial history, which is not given enough attention in research on climate protection, education for sustainable development or land use rights. Concerning the knowledge types of sustainability (systemic, normative and transformative), our expectation that system knowledge widely dominates the literature was confirmed, with a combination of systemic and normative as well as systemic and transformative knowledge being also abundantly published. We cautiously interpret this as a reflection of the research we investigated on partial knowledge, while an overarching integration of knowledge types is needed for many of the sustainability challenges we face, including the ones associated with gender. While a problem orientation dominates much of the discourse, only few papers focus on normative or transformative knowledge. In their paper on environmental justice in urban mobility decision-making, for instance, Chavez-Rodriguez et al. ( 2020 ) combined all three knowledge types. First, they dismantled how discourses and narratives on urban mobility are often socially exclusionary and reproduce patterns of marginalization (systemic knowledge). They then argued that environmental justice as an intersectional system must include mobility justice (normative knowledge). In the end, they proposed a framework definition of ‘queering the city’ which shall help to create a more emancipatory narrative on urban mobility (transformative knowledge) (Chavez-Rodriguez et al. 2020 ). However, the small proportion of papers doing this indicates a lack of an overarching perspective when it comes to the diverse knowledge types, which can be considered relevant to overcome the problems we face globally.

(iii) Concerning the third research interest, the investigated literature mainly contributed to few SDGs, with SDG 5 ‘Gender Equality’, SDG 8 ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’, SDG 3 ‘Good Health and Well-being’ and SDG 4 ‘Quality Education’ being in the main focus. All other SDGs were mentioned by less than 10% of the papers. This underlines that most scientific papers are rather focused than holistic when viewed through an SDG perspective. While no research can meaningfully engage with all SDGs, we would propose that a wider coverage of other SDGs to be engaging more in gender research would be beneficial.

Furthermore, SDGs are often mentioned as a boundary framework while missing the chance to deeply engage with the conceptual foundation or purpose of the SDG framework. Within the vast majority of papers, the SDGs are referred to as a means to the end of positioning the research within a current discourse. In other words, many papers do not work with the SDGs to contribute toward its strategies and solutions, but instead to simply be affiliated to the broad movement of sustainable development. This reference often takes place in the introduction or conclusion of the paper and is of no importance in the actual research. This gives the impression that the popularity of the SDGs, which goes beyond the discourse of sustainability science, is used to categorize or identify one's own research within the light of sustainability.

However, there are many constructive contributions toward a critical perspective on the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals. Ong et al. ( 2020 ) highlight that queer identities are not included within the SDGs, yet they relate their research to several SDGs such as SDG 5, 10, 11 and 16. They argued that “these goals demonstrate the centrality of inclusivity to the development of sustainable communities'' (Ong et al. 2020 , p. 1477). Poku et al. ( 2017 ) went one step further and postulated the need to queer the SDGs by linking opportunities for addressing social exclusion for LGBTI in Africa to the SDGs.

(iv) Based on the set of the literature we analyzed, all in all, gender and sustainability research utilize a broad range of methods that allow for different forms of knowledge (Spangenberg 2011 ). However, we find strong links between specific methods and certain areas of sustainability within the emerging groups within the identified literature. For example, nearly all research in cluster seven, which focuses on corporations and economy, uses a quantitative statistical approach, while other clusters are defined by qualitative methods and lack quantitative ones. This methodological homogeneity within certain research clusters highlights already established preferences for certain methods in specific fields of research, disciplines and focal topics where some methods are more adequate than others. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of gender and sustainability, however, we critically regard these links as they often emerge from previously existing research traditions and thus lack methodological plurality.

(v) Within the examined literature, the two investigated understandings of gender, namely non-binarity and intersectionality, are differently acknowledged and incorporated in the reviewed literature. Very few authors challenge the gender binary approaches within the considered scientific articles, where less than a fifth of the papers considered gender to be socially constructed (14%) or non-binary (5%). While the vast majority of papers do not explicitly state that they build on a binary understanding of gender, they nevertheless replicate or suggest a binarity in their focus and/or empirical categorization that clearly indicates a binary division. Moreover, some papers put forward ethical or moral differences in men and women when it comes to sustainability. For example, some researchers are led by gender assumptions which often originate from the field of eco-feminism such as women being more caring of the environment, since they have a natural disposition to care and to being a mother (Brough et al. 2016 ; Lau et al. 2021 ). When such proposals do not pay attention to gender norms and power imbalances, they run the risk of further naturalizing the gender binarity as ‘immutable biological differences’ (Lau et al. 2021 ). Lastly, we find that gender differences are nearly always illustrated on behalf of women. While an explicit focus on women’s lives in research can be useful and necessary, it should not be limited to it. A narrow focus on women excludes many other genders from research and can furthermore evoke the assumption that gender equality and sustainability are ‘women’s issues’ (Lau et al. 2021 ).

No pattern regarding the temporal increase or decrease of non-binary or socially constructed gender understanding can be found in the body of literature examined by us, in absolute numbers or in proportions.

In summary, theories and findings from gender studies like the constructivist turn and queer theory as well as intersectionality are yet to permeate the field of sustainability research.

Within the examined research, there is clearly a limited acknowledgment of intersectionality, with less than a third of all articles using other social categories apart from gender in their analysis or applying even an intersectional approach. Intersectionality was thus applied in diverse research cluster groups underlining the importance for a diverse methodological approach to investigate intersectionality (Rice et al 2019 ). Intersectionality is most frequently addressed in the research cluster focusing on gender and institutions, meaning that this literature named and utilized the concept. We refrained from making a deeper analysis of whether more than one social category was analyzed, which would demand a deeper text analysis. We refrained from such interpretation, because due to the short form of peer-reviewed papers such information is often omitted or not coherently reported. However, intersectionality often is hardly mentioned in the analyzed papers, neither as a word nor as a concept. Instead, different identity categories than gender are merely used to further characterize the research subject(s). For instance, Theobald et al. ( 2017 ) referred to intersectionality in their research regarding gender mainstreaming within health and neglected tropical diseases, highlighting the impact of gender on health issues while acknowledging the intersection of gender with other axes of inequality. They illustrated how dimensions of gender interact with poverty, (dis)ability, occupation, power, geography and other individual positionalities in shaping impacts on health and care programs (Theobald et al. 2017 ).

The concept of intersectionality is applied on a diversity of topics. As Rice et al. ( 2019 ) point out, there is also “no single method for undertaking intersectional research. It can be used with many methods and approaches, quantitative and qualitative” (Rice et al. 2019 , p. 418). In addition to previously mentioned example papers from our analysis focusing on tourism as well as sustainability education, there are suggestions to match the SDGs with an intersectional conceptualization (Stephens et al. 2018 ; Zamora et al. 2018 ). Similarly, attempts to integrate intersectionality to other long standing policy communities such as global health exist (Theobald et al. 2017 ). Hardy et al. ( 2020 ) integrate the concept into research on indigenous youth. Such papers showcase the strong connectivity of the concept to many different branches of research. By integrating diverse voices, showcasing how injustices are intertwined and that different reasons for injustices amplify each other, intersectionality can serve as a strong foundational concept within sustainability science (Maina-Okori et al. 2018 ). Our review showcases that the majority of papers focusing on gender do not utilize the concept. Within the analyzed literature, overall citation rates are comparably low and the most highly cited papers do not utilize the concept. In summary, intersectionality has not fully reached the sustainability science community as of yet.

Before we come to our final conclusions, we would like to again reflect upon our positionality as scholars researching this topic. We recognize that we as scholars have a highly privileged position in academia as well as the world, both regarding resources and the institutions at which we are working in that make our voices heard. We would like to use this position to address the existing power dynamics within sustainability science to other equally privileged scholars. We hope to reflect upon and challenge the deeply embedded power structures within Western academic knowledge production as well as considering the role gender inclusive and intersectional approaches can play in addressing sustainability problems. This paper is a mere attempt to grasp the research that has so far been conducted upon gender in sustainability science, and from our end a definitive work in progress. Yet, this is then also the ultimate goal in writing this paper, to progress, even if it is only one step at a time.

Finally, we would like to give an outlook on what findings have been published in the period following our research period. For this purpose, we again entered our search string in the Scopus database and searched for articles on gender in sustainability science for the period January 2021 to October 2022. This search yielded a further 2.304 articles after applying our exclusion criteria. To narrow the analysis, we sorted these results by citation and looked at the articles with the highest citations. This cursory scan reveals that many papers consider gender only as an empirical category of analysis, and that these are thematically related to the field of economics and health, for example, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. Only a few focus on gender as a central research interest. These results also largely coincide with the results of this review. As a perspective, we would like to highlight the COVID-19 pandemic once again, because the analyses and studies that have been conducted in connection with gender can shed new light on the role of gender during global crises and are therefore an important contribution to sustainability science.

We have systematically examined the development and state of research focusing on gender in sustainability science by means of a quantitative analysis of 1054 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2021. Our analysis clearly illustrates that while a diverse body of literature on gender exists within sustainability science, several research clusters with different focal points are emerging. As all these branches of the literature utilize diverse methodological approaches and different conceptual foundations; there is a lack of a more holistic integration of the topic within the broader literature. While the word “holistic” is a clearly big claim, we can underline based on our review that conceptual foundations, definitions and agreement on the most simple terms and procedures are lacking to this day, while at the same time the problems of gender issues are mounting.

It is highly likely that the recent surge in literature will increase. Thus, we put forward five tangible suggestions on how the research community could further evolve below.

Although a research focus on gender will not solve the prevalent problem of postcolonial research structures, an increasing diversity of voices with different backgrounds would bring forth new and diverse knowledge. At this point, we would like to draw particular attention to the theories and bodies of knowledge of Black feminists, as well as Indigenous knowledge and decolonial approaches.

We advise the research community to build on distinct definitions of sustainability as well as to put a strong focus on the contribution toward solutions for sustainability challenges. The creation of descriptive-analytical system knowledge which outlines the current status quo of gender equality with regards to sustainability and points out many current problems is a necessary and helpful first step. Yet, knowing the mechanics and causes of a problem does not translate into knowing how to approach and move toward a state of more equality. We therefore urge scholars to also apply a solution-oriented perspective in their research regarding gender in sustainability science.

Moreover, although there is seemingly much research that discusses gender issues, only a low proportion of those papers actively engage with gender on an empirical level. To achieve the goal of a world with less inequalities, more research should enable deep normative understandings of diverse and inclusive recognitions of gender identities and associated social, economic and cultural consequences as well as investigate pathways of transformation and sustainable change. While such normative claims may facilitate ethical evaluations, more work is needed to enable an inclusive understanding of the context of such evaluations.

All in all, the emerging research clusters showcase that there are engaged researchers that focus on gender within sustainability science. However, there are gaps between the clusters where for example a recognition of intersectionality would hold benefits for more researchers, and a higher methodological plurality may benefit knowledge production, to name two examples. What is clear is that within sustainability science, gender issues are widely ignored to this day, and based on the systematic review we conducted, we can encourage more research on gender issues and diversity.

When gender is integrated as an analytical foundation or a concept associated with gender is being utilized within sustainability science, the critical perspective that the academic field of gender studies has developed over the past decades is seldom integrated, e.g., theories on the social construction of gender, queer theory and Black feminist theory. The concept of intersectionality should especially be further acknowledged, as it may shed a stronger light on perceived and endured injustices and give hope for a greater involvement of researchers not only to investigate these issues, but also to help to overcome them.

While our review only focuses on peer-reviewed literature and thus can only offer a specific perspective, we hope yet to offer a contribution to the bigger picture, thereby creating a link between gender and sustainability.

Abasahl F, Kelarestaghi KB, Ermagun A (2018) Gender gap generators for bicycle mode choice in Baltimore college campuses. Travel Behav Soc 11:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.01.002

Article   Google Scholar  

Abdelali-Martini M, Amri A, Ajlouni M, Assi R, Sbieh Y, Khnifes A (2008) Gender dimension in the conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity in West Asia. J Socio-Econ 37(1):365–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2007.06.007

Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.01

Adjei M (2019) Women’s participation in peace processes: a review of literature. J Peace Educ 16(2):133–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2019.1576515

Agarwal B (1992) The gender and environment debate: lessons from India. Fem Stud 18(1):119–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217

Agarwal B (1998) The gender and environment debate. In: Roger K, Bell D, Penz P, Leeson F (eds) Political ecology. Global and local. London/New York, pp 193–219

Agius C, Mundkur A (2020) The Australian Foreign Policy White Paper, gender and conflict prevention: ties that don’t bind. Aust J Int Aff 74(3):282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2020.1744518

Allen E, Lyons H, Stephens JC (2019) Women’s leadership in renewable transformation, energy justice and energy democracy: redistributing power. Energy Res Soc Sci 57:101233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101233

Al-Rashid MA, Nahiduzzaman KM, Ahmed S, Campisi T, Akgün N (2020) Gender-responsive public transportation in the Dammam metropolitan region, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 12(21):9068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219068

Alston M, Whittenbury K (eds) (2013) Research, action and policy. In: Addressing the gendered impacts of climate change. Springer, Dordrecht, New York

Andajani S, Chirawatkul S, Saito E (2015) Gender and water in Northeast Thailand: inequalities and women’s realities. J Int Women’s Stud 16(2):200–212

Google Scholar  

Ansong D, Renwick CB, Okumu M, Ansong E, Wabwire CJ (2018) Gendered geographical inequalities in junior high school enrollment: do infrastructure, human, and financial resources matter? J Eco Stud 45(2):411–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-10-2016-0211

Appiah EM (2015) Affirmative action, gender equality, and increased participation for women, which way for Ghana? Statut Law Rev 36(3):270–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmv016

Arevalo JA (2020) Gendering sustainability in management education: research and pedagogy as space for critical engagement. J Manag Educ 44(6):852–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920946796

Assoumou-Ella G (2019) Gender inequality in education and per capita GDP: the case of CEMAC countries. Econ Bull. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3391773

Azanaw A, Tassew A (2017) Gender equality in rural development and agricultural extension in Fogera District, Ethiopia: implementation, access to and control over resources. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 17(4):12509–12533. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.80.16665

Azmi Z (2020) Discoursing women’s political participation towards achieving sustainable development: the case of women in Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS). Kajian Malaysia 38(1):67–88. https://doi.org/10.21315/km2020.38.s1.5

Badstue L, Petesch P, Farnworth CR, Roeven L, Hailemariam M (2020) Women farmers and agricultural innovation: marital status and normative expectations in rural Ethiopia. Sustainability 12(23):9847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239847

Bauhardt C (2022) Queer ecologies. In: Gottschlich D, Hackfort S, Schmitt T, von Winterfeld U (eds) Handbuch Politische Ökologie: Theorien, Begriffe, Konflikte, Methoden. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, pp 427–432

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Belahsen R, Naciri K, El Ibrahimi A (2017) Food security and women’s roles in Moroccan Berber (Amazigh) society today. Matern Child Nutr 13:e12562. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12562

Benítez B, Nelson E, Romero Sarduy MI, Ortiz Perez R, Crespo Morales A, Casanova Rodriguez C et al (2020) Empowering women and building sustainable food systems: a case study of cuba’s local agricultural Innovation Project. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:554414. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.554414

Benjamin EO, Ola O, Buchenrieder G (2018) Does an agroforestry scheme with payment for ecosystem services (PES) economically empower women in sub-Saharan Africa? Ecosyst Serv 31:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.004

Betron M, Thapa A, Amatya R, Thapa K, Arlotti-Parish E, Schuster A et al (2020) Should female community health volunteers (FCHVs) facilitate a response to gender-based violence (GBV)? A mixed methods exploratory study in Mangalsen, Nepal. Glob Public Health 16(10):1604–1617. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1839929

Birindelli G, Iannuzzi AP, Savioli M (2019) The impact of women leaders on environmental performance: evidence on gender diversity in banks. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26(6):1485–1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1762

Blicharska M, Smithers RJ, Kuchler M, Agrawal GK, Gutiérrez JM, Hassanali A, Huq S, Koller SH, Marjit S, Mshinda HM, Masjuki HH, Solomons NW, van Staden J, Mikusiński G (2017) Steps to overcome the North-South divide in research relevant to climate change policy and practice. Nat Clim Change 7(1):21–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3163

Bosmans M, Nasser D, Khammash U, Claeys P, Temmerman M (2008) Palestinian women’s sexual and reproductive health rights in a longstanding humanitarian crisis. Reprod Health Matters 16(31):103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(08)31343-3

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

Brough AR, Wilkie JEB, Ma J, Isaac MS, Gal D (2016) Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. J Consum Res 43(4):567–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044

Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future: report of the World Commission on environment and development

Buechler S, Vázquez-García V, Martínez-Molina KG, Sosa-Capistrán DM (2020) Patriarchy and (electric) power? A feminist political ecology of solar energy use in Mexico and the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 70:101743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101743

Bührmann AD (2009) Intersectionality—ein Forschungsfeld auf dem Weg zum Paradigma? Tendenzen, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven der Forschung über Intersektionalität. GENDER Zeitschrift Für Geschlecht, Kultur Und Gesellschaft (2):28–44

Burkhardt K, Nguyen P, Poincelot E (2020) Agents of change: women in top management and corporate environmental performance. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(4):1591–1604. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1907

Bürkner H-J (2012) Intersectionality: how gender studies might inspire the analysis of social inequality among migrants. Popul Space Place 18(2):181–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.664

Burney J, Alaofè H, Naylor R, Taren D (2017) Impact of a rural solar electrification project on the level and structure of women’s empowerment. Environ Res Lett 12(9):095007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7f38

Burridge N, Maree Payne A, Rahmani N (2016) ‘Education is as important for me as water is to sustaining life’: perspectives on the higher education of women in Afghanistan. Gend Educ 28(1):128–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1096922

Butler J (1990) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge, London

Chavez-Rodriguez L, Lomas RT, Curry L (2020) Environmental justice at the intersection: Exclusion patterns in urban mobility narratives and decision making in Monterrey, Mexico. DIE ERDE J Geogr Soc Berlin 151(2–3):116–128. https://doi.org/10.12854/erde-2020-479

Cheng KKY, Ghajarieh ABB (2011) Rethinking the concept of masculinity and femininity: focusing on Iran’s female students. Asian J Soc Sci 39(3):365–371. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853111X577613

Chindarkar N (2012) Gender and climate change-induced migration: proposing a framework for analysis. Environ Res Lett 7(2):025601. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/025601

Clark WC (ed) (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738

Clark W, Harley A (2019) Sustainability science: towards a synthesis. Sustainability Science Program Working Papers. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42574531 .

Cohn C, Duncanson C (2020) Women, Peace and security in a changing climate. Int Fem J Polit 22(5):742–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2020.1843364

Collyer FM (2018) Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: global North, global South. Curr Sociol 66(1):56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020

Combahee River Collective (2018) A black feminist statement. In: Feminist Manifestos. NYU Press, pp 269–277. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvf3w44b.63 ( Original work published 1977 )

Conference of the Swiss Scientific Academies, Forum for Climate and Global Change, & Swiss Academy of Science (1997) Research on sustainability and global change—visions in science policy by Swiss researchers. http://www.proclim.unibe.ch/visions.html

Cortina R (2010) Gender equality in education: GTZ and indigenous communities in Peru. Development 53(4):529–534. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2010.71

Crenshaw KW (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. In: University of Chicago legal forum, vol 1, no 8. pp 138–167

Crockett C, Cooper B (2016) Gender norms as health harms: reclaiming a life course perspective on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Reprod Health Matters 24(48):6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2016.11.003

Curth J, Evans S (2011) Monitoring and evaluation in police capacity building operations: ‘women as uniform?’ Police Pract Res 12(6):492–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2011.581440

Dankelman I (ed) (2010) Gender and climate change: an introduction. Earthscan, London

Denton F (2002) Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: why does gender matter? Gend Dev 10(2):10–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070215903

Drafor I, Kunze D, Al Hassan R (2005) Gender roles in farming systems: an overview using cases from Ghana. Ann Arid Zone 44(3&4):421–439

Dyer M (2018) Transforming communicative spaces: the rhythm of gender in meetings in rural Solomon Islands. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09866-230117

Eger C, Munar AM, Hsu C (2022) Gender and tourism sustainability. J Sustain Tour 30(7):1459–1475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1963975

Elmagrhi MH, Ntim CG, Elamer AA, Zhang Q (2018) A study of environmental policies and regulations, governance structures, and environmental performance: the role of female directors. Bus Strateg Environ 28(1):206–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2250

Elsevier B.V. (2020) Scopus. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic#basic

Enarson EP, Chakrabarti PG (eds) (2009) Women, gender and disaster: global issues and initiatives. ebrary, Inc. SAGE, Los Angeles

Ennaji M (2016) Women, gender, and politics in Morocco. Soc Sci 5(4):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040075

Ergas C (2014) Barriers to sustainability: gendered divisions of labor in Cuban urban agriculture. From sustainable to resilient cities: global concerns and urban efforts. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1047-004220140000014011

Fenstermaker S (2013) Doing gender, doing difference. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203615683

Book   Google Scholar  

Fischer G, Gramzow A, Laizer A (2017) Gender, vegetable value chains, income distribution and access to resources: insights from surveys in Tanzania. Eur J Hortic Sci 82(6):319–327. https://doi.org/10.17660/eJHS.2017/82.6.7

Friedman R, Hirons MA, Boyd E (2019) Vulnerability of Ghanaian women cocoa farmers to climate change: a typology. Clim Dev 11(5):446–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1442806

Friedson-Ridenour S, Dutcher TV, Calderon C, Brown LD, Olsen CW (2019) Gender analysis for one health: theoretical perspectives and recommendations for practice. EcoHealth 16:306–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-019-01410-w

Garai J (2016) Gender specific vulnerability in climate change and possible sustainable livelihoods of coastal people. A case from Bangladesh. Revista De Gestão Costeira Integrada-J Integr Coast Zone Manag 16(1):79–88. https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci656

García Martín CJ, Herrero B (2020) Do board characteristics affect environmental performance? A study of EU firms. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(1):74–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1775

Garutsa TC, Nekhwevha FH (2016) Labour-burdened women utilising their marginalised indigenous knowledge in food production processes: the case of Khambashe rural households, Eastern Cape, South Africa. South Afr Rev Sociol 47(4):106–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2016.1204243

Gaybor J (2022) Of apps and the menstrual cycle: a journey into self-tracking. Feminist methodologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82654-3_4

Glazebrook T, Noll S, Opoku E (2020) Gender matters: climate change, gender bias, and women’s farming in the global South and North. Agriculture 10(7):267. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10070267

Gómez CA (2011) Preventing HIV in US women and girls: a call for social action. Womens Health Issues 21(6):S287–S294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2011.07.012

Gottschlich D, Hackfort S, Katz C (2022) Feministische Politische Ökologie. In: Gottschlich D, Hackfort S, Schmitt T, von Winterfeld U (eds) Handbuch Politische Ökologie: Theorien, Begriffe, Konflikte, Methoden. transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, pp 91–106

Green KR (2019) Social return on investment: a women’s cooperative critique. Soc Enterp J 15(3):320–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2018-0084

Grunwald A (2007) Working towards sustainable development in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. J Environ Plan Policy Manag 9(3–4):245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080701622774

Gudjonsson S, Kristinsson K, Gylfason HF, Minelgaite I (2020) Female advantage? Management and financial performance in microfinance. Bus Theory Pract 21(1):83–91. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.11354

Hackfort S (2015) Klimawandel und Geschlecht: Zur politischen Ökologie der Anpassung in Mexico. Studien zu Lateinamerika (29), Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden Baden. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845261652-1

Haig D (2004) The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Arch Sex Behav 33(2):87–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ASEB.0000014323.56281.0d

Harcourt W, Argüello Calle X (2022) Embodying cyberspace: making the personal political in digital places. Feminist methodologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 83–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82654-3_5

Hardy B-J, Lesperance A, Foote I, Firestone M, Smylie J (2020) Meeting Indigenous youth where they are at: knowing and doing with 2SLGBTTQQIA and gender non-conforming Indigenous youth: a qualitative case study. BMC Public Health 20(1):1871. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09863-3

Häusler S (1997) Gender and the environment: recent initiatives to improve sustainable development policy, planning and practice. Gend Technol Dev 1(3):327–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.1997.11909863

Hennebry J, Hari KC, Piper N (2019) Not without them: realising the sustainable development goals for women migrant workers. J Ethn Migr Stud 45(14):2621–2637. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1456775

Hofmeister S, Katz C, Mölders T (2012) Geschlechterverhältnisse und Nachhaltigkeit: Die Kategorie Geschlecht in den Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften. Verlag Barbara Budrich, Leverkusen-Opladen

Holden ST, Tilahun M (2020) Farm size and gender distribution of land: evidence from Ethiopian land registry data. World Dev 130:104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104926

Ihalainen M, Schure J, Sola P (2020) Where are the women? A review and conceptual framework for addressing gender equity in charcoal value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain Dev 55:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2019.11.003

Imburgia L (2019) Irrigation and equality: an integrative gender-analytical approach to water governance with examples from Ethiopia and Argentina. Water Altern 12(2):571–587

Islam MS, Siddiqui L (2020) A geographical analysis of gender inequality in literacy among Muslims of West Bengal, India (2001–2011). GeoJournal 85(5):1325–1354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10025-1

Jeffery R (2014) Authorship in multi-disciplinary, multi-national North-South research projects: issues of equity, capacity and accountability. Compare J Comp Int Educ 44(2):208–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.829300

Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E, Persson J (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(1):69–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x

Johnson DE, Fisher K, Parsons M (2022) Diversifying indigenous vulnerability and adaptation: an intersectional reading of Māori women’s experiences of health, wellbeing, and climate change. Sustainability 14(9):5452. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095452

Kaijser A, Kronsell A (2014) Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environ Polit 23(3):417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203

Kalpazidou Schmidt E, Ovseiko PV, Henderson LR, Kiparoglou V (2020) Understanding the Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system: analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective. Health Res Policy Syst 18(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0527-x

Kamberidou I (2020) “Distinguished” women entrepreneurs in the digital economy and the multitasking whirlpool. J Innov Entrep 9(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-0114-y

Karlsson S, Srebotnjak T, Gonzales P (2007) Understanding the North–South knowledge divide and its implications for policy: a quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental … https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1462901107000470

Kawgan-Kagan I (2020) Are women greener than men? A preference analysis of women and men from major German cities over sustainable urban mobility. Transp Res Interdiscipl Perspect 8:100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100236

Kennedy E, Binder G, Humphries-Waa K, Tidhar T, Cini K, Comrie-Thomson L et al (2020) Gender inequalities in health and wellbeing across the first two decades of life: an analysis of 40 low-income and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Lancet Glob Health 8(12):e1473–e1488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30354-5

Khalikova VR, Jin M, Chopra SS (2021) Gender in sustainability research: inclusion, intersectionality, and patterns of knowledge production. J Ind Ecol 25(4):900–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13095

Kim DJ (2020) Beyond identity lines: women building peace in Northern Ireland and the Korean peninsula. Asia Europe J 18(4):463–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-019-00551-5

Klugman J, Li L, Barker KM, Parsons J, Dale K (2019) How are the domains of women’s inclusion, justice, and security associated with maternal and infant mortality across countries? Insights from the Women, Peace, and Security Index. SSM-Popul Health 9:100486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100486

Kravets O, Preece C, Maclaran P (2020) The uniform entrepreneur: making gender visible in social enterprise. J Macromark 40(4):445–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146720930331

Kreile R (2005) Liberation through war? Women’s rights in Afghanistan between global order and identity politics. Internationale Politik Und Gesellschaft 1:102–120

Kronsell A, Smidfelt Rosqvist L, Winslott Hiselius L (2016) Achieving climate objectives in transport policy by including women and challenging gender norms: the Swedish case. Int J Sustain Transp 10(8):703–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2015.1129653

Kronsell A, Dymén C, Rosqvist LS, Hiselius LW (2020) Masculinities and femininities in sustainable transport policy: a focus on Swedish municipalities. NORMA 15(2):128–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2020.1714315

Lama AS, Kharel S, Ghale T (2017) When the men are away: migration and women’s participation in Nepal’s community forestry. Mt Res Dev 37(3):263–270. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00092.1

Lama P, Hamza M, Wester M (2021) Gendered dimensions of migration in relation to climate change. Clim Dev 13(4):326–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1772708

Larasatie P, Barnett T, Hansen E (2020) The “Catch-22” of representation of women in the forest sector: the perspective of student leaders in top global forestry universities. Forests 11(4):419. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11040419

Lau JD, Kleiber D, Lawless S, Cohen PJ (2021) Gender equality in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nat Clim Change 11(3):186–192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00999-7

Le HT, Quinn F, West A, Hankey S (2019) Advancing cycling among women. J Transp Land Use 12(1):355–374. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26911273

Levy C (1992) Gender and the environment: the challenge of cross-cutting issues in development policy and planning. Environ Urban 4(1):134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400114

Lieu J, Sorman AH, Johnson OW, Virla LD, Resurrección BP (2020) Three sides to every story: gender perspectives in energy transition pathways in Canada, Kenya and Spain. Energy Res Soc Sci 68:101550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101550

Limuwa MM, Synnevåg G (2018) Gendered perspective on the fish value chain, livelihood patterns and coping strategies under climate change-insights from Malawi’s small-scale fisheries. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 18(2):13521–13540. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.82.17580

Lince-Deroche N, Berry KM, Hendrickson C, Sineke T, Kgowedi S, Mulongo M (2019) Women’s costs for accessing comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services: findings from an observational study in Johannesburg, South Africa. Reprod Health 16:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0842-2

Littig B (2002) The case for gender-sensitive socio-ecological research. Work Employ Soc 16(1):111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170222119272

Loganathan T, Chan ZX, de Smalen AW, Pocock NS (2020) Migrant women’s access to sexual and reproductive health services in Malaysia: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(15):5376. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155376

Loukil N, Yousfi O, Yerbanga R (2019) Does gender diversity on boards influence stock market liquidity? Empirical evidence from the French market. Corp Govern Int J Bus Soc 19(4):669–703. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2018-0291

Lozano R (2008) Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J Clean Prod 16(17):1838–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008

Lutz H (2002) The long shadows of the past. The new Europe at a crossroad. Crossing borders and shifting boundaries. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-09527-9_4

MacGregor S (2010) Gender and climate change: from impacts to discourses. J Indian Ocean Reg 6(2):223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/19480881.2010.536669

MacGregor S (2020) Making matter great again? Ecofeminism, new materialism and the everyday turn in environmental politics. Environ Polit. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1846954

Mahadevia D, Lathia S (2019) Women’s safety and public spaces: lessons from the Sabarmati riverfront, India. Urban Plan 4(2):154–168. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i2.2049

Maina-Okori NM, Koushik JR, Wilson A (2018) Reimagining intersectionality in environmental and sustainability education: a critical literature review. J Environ Educ 49(4):286–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1364215

Majumdar A (2019) Beyond essentialism: Ecofeminism and the ‘friction’ between gender and ecology. In: Aneja A (ed) Women’s and gender studies in India. Routledge India, New Delhi, pp 66–78. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429025167

Malik BZ, ur Rehman Z, Khan AH, Akram W (2020) Women’s mobility via bus rapid transit: experiential patterns and challenges in Lahore. J Transp Health 17:100834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.10083

Malin SA, Ryder SS (2018) Developing deeply intersectional environmental justice scholarship. Environ Sociol 4(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.144671

Maluka S, Japhet P, Fitzgerald S, Begum K, Alexander M, Kamuzora P (2020) Leaving no one behind: using action research to promote male involvement in maternal and child health in Iringa region, Tanzania. BMJ Open 10(11):e038823. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038823

Manandhar M, Hawkes S, Buse K, Nosrati E, Magar V (2018) Gender, health and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Bull World Health Organ 96(9):644. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.211607

Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2006.11907976

Martins A (2020) Reimagining equity: redressing power imbalances between the global North and the global South. Gend Dev 28(1):135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2020.1717172

Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18(6):493–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00019-5

Mechlenborg M, Gram-Hanssen K (2020) Gendered homes in theories of practice: a framework for research in residential energy consumption. Energy Res Soc Sci 67:101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101538

Mehta L (2016) Dianne Rocheleau: the feminist political ecology legacy and beyond. In: Harcourt W (ed) The Palgrave handbook of gender and development. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-38273-3_18

Meinzen-Dick RS, Brown LR, Feldstein HS, Quisumbing AR (1997) Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Dev 25(8):1303–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00027-2

Meinzen-Dick R, Kovarik C, Quisumbing AR (2014) Gender and sustainability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39(1):29–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013240

Mello D, Schmink M (2017) Amazon entrepreneurs: Women’s economic empowerment and the potential for more sustainable land use practices. Women’s Stud Int Forum 65:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2016.11.008

Michelsen G, Adomßent M (2014) Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Hintergründe und Zusammenhänge. Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften. Springer Spektrum, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 3–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25112-2_1

Mies M, Shiva V (1995) Ökofeminismus: Beiträge zur Praxis und Theorie. Rotpunkt Verlag, Zürich

Minckas N, Shannon G, Mannell J (2020) The role of participation and community mobilisation in preventing violence against women and girls: a programme review and critique. Glob Health Action 13(1):1775061. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2020.1775061

Mitra R, Nash S (2019) Can the built environment explain gender gap in cycling? An exploration of university students’ travel behavior in Toronto, Canada. Int J Sustain Transp 13(2):138–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1449919

Montoya-Robledo V, Calero LM, Carvajal VB, Molina DCG, Pipicano W, Peña AJ et al (2020) Gender stereotypes affecting active mobility of care in Bogotá. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 86:102470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102470

Morgan R, Tetui M, Muhumuza Kananura R, Ekirapa-Kiracho E, George AS (2017) Gender dynamics affecting maternal health and health care access and use in Uganda. Health Policy Plan 32(suppl 5):v13–v21. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czx011

Mortimer-Sandilands C, Erickson B (eds) (2010) Queer ecologies: sex, nature, politics, desire. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

Moyo T, Dhliwayo R (2019) Achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment in Sub-Saharan Africa: lessons from the experience of selected countries. J Dev Soc 35(2):256–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X19845957

Muehlenhard CL, Peterson ZD (2011) Distinguishing between sex and gender: history, current conceptualizations, and implications. Sex Roles 64(11–12):791–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9932-5

Mulema AA, Jogo W, Damtew E, Mekonnen K, Thorne P (2019) Women farmers’ participation in the agricultural research process: implications for agricultural sustainability in Ethiopia. Int J Agric Sustain 17(2):127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1569578

Mungai EM, Ndiritu SW, Rajwani T (2020) Raising the bar? Top management teams, gender diversity, and environmental sustainability. Afr J Manag 6(4):269–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322373.2020.1830688

Nash JC (2008) Re-thinking intersectionality. Fem Rev 89(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2008.4

Neumayer E, Plümper T (2007) The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 97(3):551–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00563.x

Nhem S, Lee YJ (2019) Women’s participation and the gender perspective in sustainable forestry in Cambodia: local perceptions and the context of forestry research. For Sci Technol 15(3):93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2019.1595174

O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Nygaard LP, Schjolden A (2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim Policy 7:73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685639

Odeh LE (2010) A comparative analysis of global north and global south economies. J Sustain Dev Afr 12(3):338–348. https://jsd-africa.com/jsda/v12no3_summer2010_a/pdf/a%20comparative%20analysis%20of%20global%20north%20and%20global%20south%20economies%20(odeh).pdf

Odrowaz-Coates A (2021) Definitions of sustainability in the context of gender. Sustainability 13(12):6862. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126862

Ong F, Vorobjovas-Pinta O, Lewis C (2020) LGBTIQ + identities in tourism and leisure research: a systematic qualitative literature review. J Sustain Tour 30(7):1476–1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1828430

Orazalin N, Baydauletov M (2020) Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: the moderating role of board gender diversity. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(4):1664–1676. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1915

Ozordi E, Eluyela FD, Uwuigbe U, Uwuigbe OR, Nwaze CE (2020) Gender diversity and sustainability responsiveness: evidence from Nigerian fixed money deposit banks. Probl Perspect Manag 18(1):119–129. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(1).2020.11

Pandya MN, Shukla PS (2018) Role of women led sanitation in community development. J Content Community Commun 7(4):71–77. https://doi.org/10.31620/jccc.06.18/09

Pehou C, Djoudi H, Vinceti B, Elias M (2020) Intersecting and dynamic gender rights to néré, a food tree species in Burkina Faso. J Rural Stud 76:230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.02.011

Pena M, McConney P, Simmons B, Selliah N (2020) How has organization benefited women in the Barbados flyingfish fishery? A look from within. Gend Technol Dev 24(1):28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2020.1729538

Plouffe V, Bicaba F, Bicaba A, Druetz T (2020) User fee policies and women’s empowerment: a systematic scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 20:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05835-w

Poku NK, Esom K, Armstrong R (2017) Sustainable development and the struggle for LGBTI social inclusion in Africa: opportunities for accelerating change. Dev Pract 27(4):432–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1304894

Polk M (2003) Are women potentially more accommodating than men to a sustainable transportation system in Sweden? Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 8(2):75–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(02)00034-2

Prego-Meleiro P, Montalvo G, Quintela-Jorge Ó, Garcia-Ruiz C (2020) An ecological working framework as a new model for understanding and preventing the victimization of women by drug-facilitated sexual assault. Forensic Sci Int 315:110438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110438

Purwanti A, Ispriyarso B, Wijaningsih D (2018) Strategizing local regulation on women representation in village policy-making as a realization of sustainable development goals: a study in Semarang regency. J Soc Stud Educ Res 9(4):319–333. https://doi.org/10.17499/jsser.63125

R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/

Rakib MA, Islam S, Nikolaos I, Bodrud-Doza M, Bhuiyan MA (2017) Flood vulnerability, local perception and gender role judgment using multivariate analysis: a problem-based “participatory action to Future Skill Management” to cope with flood impacts. Weather Clim Extremes 18:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.10.002

Rao N, Singh C, Solomon D, Camfield L, Sidiki R, Angula M et al (2020) Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India. World Dev 125:104667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104667

Rice C, Harrison E, Friedman M (2019) Doing justice to intersectionality in research. Cult Stud Crit Methodol 19(6):409–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708619829779

Richardson D (2015) Conceptualising gender. In: Richardson D, Robinson V (eds) Introducing gender and women’s studies. Macmillan Education, Noida, pp 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-31069-9_1

Rivillas JC, Devia Rodriguez R, Song G, Martel A (2018) How do we reach the girls and women who are the hardest to reach? Inequitable opportunities in reproductive and maternal health care services in armed conflict and forced displacement settings in Colombia. PLoS ONE 13(1):e0188654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188654

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E (1996) Gender and environment: a feminist political ecology perspective. In: Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E (eds) Feminist political ecology. Routledge, New York, NY, pp 3–23

Rodenberg B (2009) Climate change adaptation from a gender perspective: a cross-cutting analysis of development-policy instruments. https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/fub188/16126/1/internetfassung_discpaper_24.2009_rodenberg_engl.pdf

Rohe J, Schlüter A, Ferse SC (2018) A gender lens on women’s harvesting activities and interactions with local marine governance in a South Pacific fishing community. Marit Stud 17:155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0106-8

Rokaya P, Sheikholeslami R, Kurkute S, Nazarbakhsh M, Zhang F, Reed MG (2017) Multiple factors that shaped sustainability science journal: a 10-year review. Sustain Sci 12(6):855–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0495-4

Romano M, Cirillo A, Favino C, Netti A (2020) ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) performance and board gender diversity: the moderating role of CEO duality. Sustainability 12(21):9298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219298

Rothermel AK (2020) Gender in the United Nations’ agenda on preventing and countering violent extremism. Int Fem J Polit 22(5):720–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2020.1827967

Sasaki N, Chopin F (2002) JICA 2001—a new approach to fisheries and marine environment. Fish Sci 68(sup2):1944–1947. https://doi.org/10.2331/fishsci.68.sup2_1944

Sasser J (2018) Introduction. Women as sexual stewards. In: Sasser J (ed) On infertile ground: population control and women’s rights in the era of climate change. New York University Press, New York, pp 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479873432.003.0001

Saviano M, Nenci L, Caputo F (2017) The financial gap for women in the MENA region: a systemic perspective. Gend Manag Int J 32(3):203–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2016-0138

Sawade O (2014) Lessons, challenges, and successes while working on the ‘Triangle’ of education, gender, and sexual and reproductive health. Gend Dev 22(1):127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2014.889339

Scheer VL, Stevens PE, Mkandawire-Valhmu L (2016) Raising questions about capitalist globalization and universalizing views on women. Adv Nurs Sci 39(2):96–107. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000120

Sciortino R (2020) Sexual and reproductive health and rights for all in Southeast Asia: more than SDGs aspirations. Cult Health Sex 22(7):744–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2020.1718213

Shanthi B, Mahalikshimi P, Chandrasekaran VS (2017) Assessing pre and post tsunami impacts on the livelihoods of coastal women using socio-economic and gender analysis (SEAGA). In: Gender in aquaculture and fisheries: engendering security in fisheries and aquaculture. p 199. https://doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.2017.30.S1.010

Shiva V (1988) Staying alive: women, ecology and development. Zed Books, London

Sindhuja P, Murugan KR (2018) A gender perspective on role performance of elected Panchayat leaders in India. J Int Women's Stud 19(3):199–214. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol19/iss3/15

Singh N (2006) Women, society and water technologies: lessons for bureaucracy. Gend Technol Dev 10(3):341–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185240601000303

Singh N (2008) Equitable gender participation in local water governance: an insight into institutional paradoxes. Water Resour Manag 22:925–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-007-9202-z

Singh N, Singh OP (2015) Climate change, water and gender: Impact and adaptation in North-Eastern Hills of India. Int Soc Work 58(3):375–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872814556826

Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270

Ssewamala FM, Sensoy Bahar O, Tozan Y, Nabunya P, Mayo-Wilson LJ, Kiyingi J et al (2019) A combination intervention addressing sexual risk-taking behaviors among vulnerable women in Uganda: study protocol for a cluster randomized clinical trial. BMC Womens Health 19(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-019-0807-1

Stephens A, Lewis ED, Reddy S (2018) Towards an inclusive systemic evaluation for the SDGs: gender equality, environments and marginalized voices (GEMs). Evaluation 24(2):220–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389018766093

Stiem L, Krause T (2016) Exploring the impact of social norms and perceptions on women’s participation in customary forest and land governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo—implications for REDD+. Int for Rev 18(1):110–122. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554816818206113

Stock R (2021) Bright as night: illuminating the antinomies of ‘gender positive’solar development. World Dev 138:105196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105196

Suciu MC, Noja GG, Cristea M (2020) Diversity, social inclusion and human capital development as fundamentals of financial performance and risk mitigation. Amfiteatru Econ 22(55):742–757. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2020/55/742

Suvarna T, Chandrachud S, Thangamayan S, Ramesh M (2019) Socio-economic development and gender inequality in India. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2019.03556.3

Sweileh WM (2020) Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019). Glob Health 16(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00602-2

Szymkowiak M, Rhodes-Reese M (2020) Addressing the gender gap: using quantitative and qualitative methods to illuminate women’s fisheries participation. Front Mar Sci 7:299. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00299

Tapver T, Laidroo L, Gurvitš-Suits NA (2020) Banks’ CSR reporting—do women have a say? Corp Govern Int J Bus Soc 20(4):639–651. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-11-2019-0338

Tejeda AG, Townsend JG (2006) Sustainable development and gender hierarchies: extension for semi-subsistence fish farming in Tabasco, Mexico. Gend Technol Dev 10(1):101–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185240501000106

Theobald S, MacPherson EE, Dean L, Jacobson J, Ducker C, Gyapong M, Hawkins K, Elphick-Pooley T, Mackenzie C, Kelly-Hope LA, Fleming FM, Mbabazi PS (2017) 20 years of gender mainstreaming in health: lessons and reflections for the neglected tropical diseases community. BMJ Glob Health 2(4):e000512. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000512

Thompson-Hall M, Carr ER, Pascual U (2016) Enhancing and expanding intersectional research for climate change adaptation in agrarian settings. Ambio 45:373–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0827-0

Thresia CU (2018) Health inequalities in South Asia at the launch of sustainable development goals: exclusions in health in Kerala, India need political interventions. Int J Health Serv 48(1):57–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731417738222

Torell E, Bilecki D, Owusu A, Crawford B, Beran K, Kent K (2019) Assessing the impacts of gender integration in Ghana’s fisheries sector. Coast Manag 47(6):507–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2019.1669098

Toth W, Vacik H, Pülzl H, Carlsen H (2022) Deepening our understanding of which policy advice to expect from prioritizing SDG targets: introducing the analytic network process in a multi-method setting. Sustain Sci 17(4):1473–1488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01009-7

Turner C (2020) ‘Soft ways of doing hard things’: women mediators and the question of gender in mediation. Peacebuilding 8(4):383–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2019.1664369

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1 (The General Assembly)

Valdivia C, Gilles J (2001) Gender and resource management: households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agric Hum Values 18:5–9. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007608717996

Valls Martínez MDC, Martin Cervantes PA, Cruz Rambaud S (2020) Women on corporate boards and sustainable development in the American and European markets: is there a limit to gender policies? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(6):2642–2656. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1989

Vershinina N, Rodgers P, Tarba S, Khan Z, Stokes P (2020) Gaining legitimacy through proactive stakeholder management: the experiences of high-tech women entrepreneurs in Russia. J Bus Res 119:111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.063

Von Dach SW (2002) Integrated mountain development: a question of gender mainstreaming. Mt Res Dev 22(3):236–239. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0236:IMDAQO]2.0.CO;2

Von Wehrden H, Luederitz C, Leventon J, Russell S (2017) Methodological challenges in sustainability science: a call for method plurality, procedural rigor and longitudinal research. Chall Sustain 5(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2017.05010035

Wallhagen M, Eriksson O, Sörqvist P (2018) Gender differences in environmental perspectives among urban design professionals. Buildings 8(4):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8040059

Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58(301):236. https://doi.org/10.2307/2282967

Wekesah FM, Mutua EN, Izugbara CO (2019) Gender and conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Int J Agric Sustain 17(1):78–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1567245

West C, Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing gender. Gend Soc 1(2):125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

Wiek A, Lang DJ (2016) Transformational sustainability research methodology. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds) Sustainability science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_3

Wiese K (2020) Energy 4 all? Investigating gendered energy justice implications of community-based micro-hydropower cooperatives in Ethiopia. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 33(2):194–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1745059

Williams R, Robertson S, Hewison A (2009) Men’s health, inequalities and policy: contradictions, masculinities and public health in England. Crit Public Health 19(3–4):475–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590802668457

Winslott Hiselius L, Kronsell A, Dymén C, Smidfelt Rosqvist L (2019) Investigating the link between transport sustainability and the representation of women in Swedish local committees. Sustainability 11(17):4728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174728

Woodroffe J (2015) Twenty years after Beijing: can promises be turned into progress? IDS Bull 46(4):92–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-5436.12162

Xie J, Nozawa W, Managi S (2020) The role of women on boards in corporate environmental strategy and financial performance: a global outlook. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(5):2044–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1945

Yadav SS, Lal R (2018) Vulnerability of women to climate change in arid and semi-arid regions: the case of India and South Asia. J Arid Environ 149:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.08.001

Yadav B, Sharma A (2017) Gender roles analysis of ornamental fish enterprises in Maharashtra State, India. Asian Fish Sci Spec 30S:333–342. https://doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.2017.30.S1.020

Yarram SR, Adapa S (2021) Board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility: is there a case for critical mass? J Clean Prod 278:123319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123319

Ylipaa J, Gabrielsson S, Jerneck A (2019) Climate change adaptation and gender inequality: insights from rural Vietnam. Sustainability 11(10):2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102805

Yount KM, Cheong YF, Grose RG, Hayford SR (2020) Community gender systems and a daughter’s risk of female genital mutilation/cutting: multilevel findings from Egypt. PLoS ONE 15(3):e0229917. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229917

Zamora G, Koller TS, Thomas R, Manandhar M, Lustigova E, Diop A, Magar V (2018) Tools and approaches to operationalize the commitment to equity, gender and human rights: towards leaving no one behind in the sustainable development goals. Glob Health Action 11(sup1):1463657. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2018.1463657

Download references

Textbox definitions

Intersectionality.

The concept of intersectionality describes the ways in which systems of inequality intersect, or interlock, to create unique dynamics and effects. Popularized by Crenshaw ( 1989 ), this idea was expressed one of the first times by the Combahee River Collective in 1977. The collective pinned down how their identity as queer, middle-class, Black women led to a specific and distinct experience of oppression and exclusion, resulting in the need to develop an “integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking” (Combahee River Collective 1977/ 2018 ). Even though the historical focus of intersectionality was on gender, race and class, the concept is not limited to these axes of social difference, but can and should include many more items such as, for example, disability or sexuality (Bührmann 2009 ; Butler 1990 ; Lutz 2002 ; Nash 2008 ).

We refer to gender as a historical construct consisting of attributes, norms, roles, opportunities, responsibilities and expectations that are socially, culturally and institutionally embedded and produce certain gender identities and social constructs (Arevalo 2020 ; Lieu et al. 2020 ; Mechlenborg and Gram-Hanssen 2020 ). Consequently, gender is not ‘given’ but learned and therefore dynamic and changing across a diverse and fluid spectrum (Curth and Evans 2011 ; Moyo and Dhliwayo 2019 ). In this paper, we focus on two important aspects, namely (i) the idea that gender is not biologically determined in a binary of man and woman but instead socially constructed and (ii) the acknowledgment of the ‘intersectional’ nature of gender, i.e., the idea that one’s gendered experience of life overlaps and interacts with other axes of identity and systems of oppression (Richardson 2015 ).

• Sustainability

We refer to sustainability based on the widely quoted definition by the Brundtland report from 1987 as meeting present needs without compromising the ability to compromise the needs of future generations (Brundtland 1987 ). Furthermore, our sustainability understanding includes an integrational perspective, also referred to as nested circles model, meaning that sustainability builds on economic, social and ecological dimensions that are interdependent and interconnected (Lozano 2008 ; Odrowaz-Coates 2021 ). In this framework, in opposition to others, the economic and social pillars are not independent from the environmental dimension, but instead depend on it (Mebratu 1998 ).

Global North/Global South

Since there is no agreed definition of these terms, we use the definition by Martins ( 2020 ) as well as Odeh ( 2010 ). The distinction between Global North and Global South is not a mere geographical one, but has its roots in colonialism and imperialism. It is important to mention that neither the North nor the South are homogeneous. The global South refers broadly to a grouping of countries that are agrarian based and experience economic and political marginalization within the global system. Global South countries often have a shared history of colonization and exploitation. The global North refers to regions traditionally referred to as ‘the West’ such as Europe, North America and Australia, among others. These countries are wealthy, technologically advanced, politically stable and aging as well as dominate the Global South in international trade (Martins 2020 ; Odeh 2010 ).

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Vienna, Universitätsring 1, 1010, Vienna, Austria

Elisabeth Frank

University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Rike Mühlhaus

Hamburg, Germany

Katinka Malena Mustelin

Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

Esther Lara Trilken

Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

Noemi Katalin Kreuz

University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Linda Catharine Bowes

Hochschule für Bildende Künste Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Lina Marie Backer

Center of Methods, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335, Lüneburg, Germany

Henrik von Wehrden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik von Wehrden .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Handled by So-Young Lee, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions.

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 permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Frank, E., Mühlhaus, R., Mustelin, K.M. et al. A systematic review of peer-reviewed gender literature in sustainability science. Sustain Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01514-5

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2023

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 15 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01514-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable development goals
• Gender studies
• Womens studies

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Romeo and Juliet — The Exploration of Gender Roles in Romeo

The Exploration of Gender Roles in Romeo

• Categories: Romeo and Juliet

About this sample

Words: 624 |

Published: Jun 13, 2024

Words: 624 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Bibliography

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1349 words

4 pages / 1776 words

3.5 pages / 1634 words

4 pages / 1712 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Romeo and Juliet

The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare, is one of the most famous love stories in literature. Throughout the play, Shakespeare uses various forms of figurative language to enhance the themes of love, [...]

In Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare presents his audience with a collection of dynamic characters who undergo significant transformations throughout the play. These characters not only play crucial roles in the tragic [...]

The tragic tale of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare is a timeless classic that continues to captivate audiences worldwide. One of the central themes of the play is the concept of fatal flaws, which are inherent weaknesses [...]

Family feud is a timeless theme that resonates with audiences across cultures and generations. In Shakespeare's famous tragedy, "Romeo and Juliet," the feud between the Montague and Capulet families serves as the central [...]

Life is driven by both choice and faith but choice is mainly what life is driven by. To begin with, fate is responsible for the reason that both Romeo and Juliet were born into two opposite families that hate each other, yet [...]

In William Shakespeare’s iconic play Romeo and Juliet, Tybalt plays a crucial role in propelling the tragic events that unfold. Despite his relatively brief appearances on stage, Tybalt’s fiery temperament and vengeful nature [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Election latest: Starmer makes 'Swift pit stop'... at the Eras Tour

The Labour leader has taken a break from general election campaigning tonight - to shake it off at Taylor Swift's Eras Tour. Listen to the latest Electoral Dysfunction as you scroll.

Saturday 22 June 2024 00:33, UK

• General Election 2024
• Starmer makes 'Swift pit stop'... at the Eras Tour
• Tories raised less than £300,000 in donations in second week of campaign - Labour received £4.4m
• Sunak asked if he's confident no more Tory candidates will be caught up in betting scandal
• Electoral Dysfunction: What are odds betting scandal sinks Tories?
• 'Own it': Corbyn responds to latest Starmer comments
• Live reporting by Faith Ridler

Election essentials

• Manifesto pledges: Alliance Party | Conservatives | Greens | Labour | Lib Dems | Plaid Cymru | Reform | SNP | Sinn Fein | Workers Party
• Trackers:  Who's leading polls? | Is PM keeping promises?
• Campaign Heritage: Memorable moments from elections gone by
• Follow Sky's politics podcasts: Electoral Dysfunction | Politics At Jack And Sam's
• Read more:  Who is standing down? | Key seats to watch | What counts as voter ID? | Check if your constituency is changing | Guide to election lingo | Sky's election night plans

We'll be back from 6am with all the latest from the general election campaign, with a little under two weeks to go until polling day.

You can scroll back through the page to catch up on what you've missed, or check out our 10pm round-up for a brief look at the day.

Join us on Saturday for another day of live updates.

Slashing red tape for Britain's pubs, restaurants and music venues would be the focus of a review launched within the first 100 days of a Tory government, the party has said.

Ministers would look into ways to "crack down" on councils imposing "disproportionate conditions" and restrictions on licences as part of a bid to boost the UK night-time economy, the Conservatives say.

It comes as Rishi Sunak seeks to shift the focus of the campaign away from the betting scandal that has thrown his party into fresh turmoil in recent days.

The Tories used the announcement to attack Labour's record on nightlife in London and Wales, as polls continue to put the opposition party on course for a historic victory on 4 July.

Business minister Kevin Hollinrake said: "The night-time economy is a vibrant sector that's vital to our economy and our society as a whole.

"We've always supported our night-time economy, with business rates reliefs, economic support during the pandemic - but wherever Labour have been responsible for the sector, it's suffered.

"We'll continue to back our night-time economy - Labour would cripple it further with higher taxes and more burdensome regulation."

It's 10pm - time for your evening election update.

The general election takes place in under two weeks, and political parties from across the House of Commons are busy on the campaign trail.

Here's what you might have missed today:

• Rishi Sunak has reiterated he was "incredibly angry" when he learned about allegations that his own parliamentary aid Craig Williams, who is a Tory candidate, had placed a bet on the election;
• Laura Saunders, the candidate for Bristol North West, and her husband, director of campaigns Tony Lee, are also being investigated by the Gambling Commission;
• David TC Davies , the Welsh secretary, told Sky News this morning that he "certainly" did not bet on the date of the general election;
• And the Conservatives got less than £300,000 in party donations between 7 and 12 June - far behind the £4.3m handed to Labour;
• But a Tory candidate told Sky News tonight that the Conservatives have a "sizable war chest" to run a "decent campaign" this year;
• Mr Sunak's favourability is now at an all time low, with three quarters of Britons having an unfavourable view of him - less even than Mr Johnson's lowest polling;
• The Welsh Conservatives have launched their manifesto today.
• Over with Labour , who - as we just mentioned - have come top of the list for party donations for the second week of the general election campaign.
• And Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer today said he would not enter negotiations with the Scottish government on an independence referendum if the SNP wins a majority of Scottish seats at the 4 July election;
• Sir Keir has also admitted today that the choice the public faced in the 2019 general election - Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn - "wasn't a good one";
• But he opted to have a night off - at Taylor Swift's Eras Tour in London;
•  And Welsh Labour has launched its manifesto today,  with shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves detailing the "simple choice" voters have to face on 4 July.
• Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey today criticised Rishi Sunak's response to his party's betting scandal as "not good enough"; 
• And Plaid Cymru has claimed Welsh Labour's manifesto lacks ambition and undermines devolution. The party said that Labour is imposing further austerity on Wales with £1.8bn worth of cuts to public services.

While you're here, check out more of our election coverage below:

By Rob Powell , political correspondent

The architect of the government's delayed reforms to social care has told Sky News politicians need to "grow up" and tackle the crisis in the sector.

Amid a bitter election row over public spending, Sir Andrew Dilnot said he believed the two main parties were reluctant to discuss care reform for fear of being accused of plotting future tax hikes.

Sir Andrew - whose 2011 report laid out several key measures adopted by the government - described social care as the "biggest risk that isn't managed" that the country faces.

He said: "Four out of five people are going to need  social care  before they die, we should grow up and face it."

"I think politicians are reluctant to talk about it firstly because they're worried about anything that means an increase in public spending and therefore possible taxation," he added.

You can read more below:

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has taken a break from general election campaigning tonight - to shake it off at Taylor Swift's Eras Tour.

Sir Keir and his wife Victoria joined thousands of Swifties at the first of three Eras Tour shows at Wembley Stadium - which will be followed up by five more in August.

Government borrowing was less than expected in May, new figures have revealed.

Net borrowing - the difference between public sector spending and income - was £15bn, an increase of £0.8bn on the same time last year, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported on Friday.

The amount is below the £15.7bn forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and less than expected by economists.

However, it was still the highest amount for the month of May since the  COVID-19 pandemic .

The ONS also said that public sector net debt, excluding public sector banks, was provisionally estimated at 99.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) in May - the highest level since March 1961.

The figure is also 3.7 percentage points higher than during the same period last year.

Economists said it showed that whoever wins the  upcoming general election  will face a string of potential financial challenges.

Nigel Farage has stood by his comment describing Andrew Tate as an "important voice" for men as he greeted supporters in Clacton-on-Sea.

The Reform UK leader had praised Tate while speaking on the Strike It Big podcast in February for defending "male culture" and said the "jury is out" on investigations into the influencer, The Guardian reported.

Since December 2022, Tate has faced charges in Romania of human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women, which he denies.

Asked whether Tate was an "important voice" for men as he was leaving a meeting with supporters, Mr Farage said: "He's got a massive following and that shows you how big the gap is.

"I mean, clearly he's facing some serious allegations and has said some things that are difficult to level with, but the fact that he's got the following shows you how big the gap is."

Mr Farage did not specify what "gap" he was referring to.

Our live poll tracker collates the results of opinion surveys carried out by all the main polling organisations - and allows you to see how the political parties are performing in the run-up to the general election.

It currently shows a drop in support in recent days for Labour and the Tories - with a jump for Reform and the Liberal Democrats.

Read more about the tracker here .

The Politics Hub is live on Sky News every night at 7pm throughout the general election campaign.

But stick with us online - we'll have updates throughout the evening.

Norman Phillips and his wife Ros - who lives with multiple sclerosis and dementia - are the human faces of the social care crisis.

Initially Norman was able to combine work with his caring responsibilities, but as Ros's condition worsened, he took early retirement.

The couple found help hard to come by and after Norman suffered an injury, they were forced to sell their home to settle care-related debts.

Ros is now subject to an NHS continuing healthcare plan after Norman suffered a breakdown earlier this year and authorities decided he was unable to carry on caring for his wife.

This includes around the clock care for Ros - something Norman said would not have been needed if a lower level of help had been made available earlier.

He said: "They've got six million of us unpaid carers. If they… help us, we can help the system.

"But what's happened to me, you know, is the system just kept backing away and backing away until I cracked."

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free