Workplace Gender Bias: Not Just between Strangers

Abstract

There is a growing disconnect between academic research on gender bias and workplace examinations of gender based discrimination (Landy, 2008). Gender stereotypes are often most salient when evaluating strangers, and a substantial body of literature examines this stranger-to-stranger bias (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Stranger-to-stranger studies often find pro-male bias in workplace evaluations, especially when gender roles and work roles are seemingly incongruent (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Such studies examine stereotype-driven bias at a micro or individual level. Additionally, at the macro or cultural level, there is clear evidence of gender differences in career choices (Konrad, 2003), promotion rates and pay (Kolesnikova & Liu, 2011), and gender harassment (Nielsen, Bjorkelo, Notelaers, & Einarsen, 2010). All of these differences negatively impact women in the workplace. New studies which focus on the meso (or organizational) level are needed to examine how stereotypes regarding women result in real world bias in organizational-level decision making. The gap in organizational-level research has led some to question whether gender bias exists outside of the stranger-to-stranger paradigm (Copus, 2005; Landy, 2008). We examine micro and macro level literature on gender-based workplace disparity and bias and review the literature that suggests stranger-to-stranger studies are relevant to meso level discrimination. In addition, we discuss the reasons why and how future studies need to specifically focus on the organizational level. Women in the U. S. workforce face significant challenges in career advancement (Bayard, Hellerstein, Neumark, & Troske, 2003; Lavelle, 2001). According to Catalyst (2010), although 47% of the U.S. workforce consists of women, less than 16% of Fortune 500 board seats, corporate officer positions, or executive officer positions were held by women in 2009. Additionally, only 3% of the Fortune 500 companies have had a woman as their chief executive officer (Cappelli & Hamori, 2005; Jones, 2009). The attainment of top positions in fields, and benefits to go along with those top positions, bypass women for many reasons. When women do manage to acquire top managerial positions in organizations, those positions come at a price. Studies indicate career-oriented women are more likely to delay relationships or children in order to advance their careers (Hoffnung, 2004). Typically, women are more likely to perceive workplace pressure to make a choice between career and family (Nielsen, Yarker, Randall & Munir, 2009). Balancing career and family can cause stress and anxiety, particularly in women (Ford, Heinen & Langkamer, 2007). Women are more likely to self-select into less prestigious and lower paying careers compared to men (Konrad, 2003). Career choices explain some of the gender pay gap in the United States, but even after adjusting for these choices of career, education, seniority, and work/family decisions the pay gap remains (Blau & Kahn, 2003). Lewis (2004) suggested gender differences in pay rates are due to human capital variables (e.g., such as education level, work schedule, experience, and career choice), rather than discrimination. However, after accounting for these human capital variables, the U.S. General Accountability Office (2003) found that there remained a wage gap between men and women. Although the gender wage gap has been decreasing over the last thirty years there is still a difference in salary between men and women in similar careers with similar experience (Kolesnikova & Liu, 2011). Women who wish to achieve managerial positions are further hampered by gender role stereotypes of men, women, and management positions. Gender role stereotypes may hamper women in masculine-type occupations such as management, resulting in reduced pay compared to men, harsher or less job-relevant standards in performance evaluation, and a reduced likelihood to advance (Eagly & Koening, 2008). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.