Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Volume 1
Career Liberation, History,
and the New Millennium
Edited by
MICHELE A. PALUDI
Praeger Perspectives
Women’s Psychology
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction xi
Chapter 1: Transforming Organizations and the Quality of Life
of the People Who Work in Them: In My Own Voice
Linda Gordon Howard 1
Chapter 2: Speaking in a ‘‘Man’s World’’: Gender Differences in
Communication Styles
Susan Basow 15
Chapter 3: On Work-Life Balance: In My Own Voice
Michelle Wildgrube 31
Chapter 4: When the Boss Is a Woman
Joan Chrisler and Sarah K. Clapp 39
Chapter 5: Women Who Started Up: The State of Women in
Entrepreneurship
Presha E. Neidermeyer, Emily Buenn, and Robert Edelman 67
Chapter 6: Leadership and Women
Karen Duff-McCall and William Schweinle 87
Chapter 7: Feminist Competing Values Leadership:
An Investigation of the Roles Played by Men
and Women
Nancy Miller Frank and Alan Belasen 101
Chapter 8: Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
Krystle C. Woods and Nicole T. Buchanan 119
‘‘Hillary Clinton needs to wear a dress or skirt now and then. Her
always making public appearances in pants gives a sense she is trying to
‘fit in’ with the boys, which is never going to be the case.’’
‘‘Hillary is cute. Those are her qualifications for prez.’’
‘‘It’ll be nice to have a woman president but you know white America
won’t let her.’’
‘‘Women, above all, should reject hillary. Missus clinton is the biggest
misogynist of all.’’
‘‘hillary clinton running must be a joke! A woman for president! Ha!
Now that[’]s a joke.’’
She [Hillary Clinton] and I are from the same generation. We both went
to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other
choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I’m more joy-
ful than she is.
I have frequently used the following riddle when students and train-
ees indicate that they believe that they themselves do not hold gender-
role stereotypes about occupations:
One afternoon, a man and his son go for a drive through the countryside.
After an hour or so they get into a terrible car crash. The father dies
instantly. The son is taken by a helicopter to the nearest hospital, where
a prominent surgeon is called to help save the boy’s life. Immediately on
entering the operating room and looking at the boy, the surgeon
exclaims, ‘‘I can’t possibly operate on this boy . . . he’s my son.’’ How can
this be?
therapists, dental hygienists, and teacher’s aides are women (U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, 2003). Betz (in press) reported that women remain under-
represented in technical and scientific fields as well as in managerial
positions in education, government, business, and the military.
In a recent study conducted by Catalyst (2007), gender-role stereo-
typing was linked to women’s participation as leaders in business.
According to this report, ‘‘Gender stereotyping, one of the key barriers
to women’s advancement in corporate leadership, leaves women with
limited, conflicting and often unfavorable options no matter how they
choose to lead.’’
Catalyst found that women constitute more than 50% of manage-
ment and professional occupations but are only 15.6% of Fortune 500
corporate officers and 14.6% of Fortune 500 board directors. Ilene Lang,
president of Catalyst, comments on this as follows:
Women earn less than 20% of the bachelor’s degrees in fields such
as engineering and physics and less than 10% of the graduate degrees
in engineering (Betz, 2007). Women represent only about 14% of engi-
neers, 30% of computer systems analysts, and 25% of computer pro-
grammers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2003, 2005). Women account for
8% of physicists and astronomers, 7% of air traffic controllers, 5% of
truck drivers, 4% of pilots, 5% of firefighters, and 2% of carpenters and
electricians (Betz, 2007).
Equally important, women are paid less for full-time employment
than men are; women make only 77% as much as men do when both
are employed full-time (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). This income
disparity is greater for Black, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic
women than for White women, and for middle-age and older women
than for younger women.
‘‘We haven’t come a long way,’’ noted Elizabeth Janeway, ‘‘we’ve
come a short way. If we hadn’t come a short way, no one would be
calling us baby.’’
These realities of the psychology of women at work require an in-
depth look at not only the barriers to women’s success but also the
strategies for empowering women at the individual, organizational,
legal, and societal levels. These three volumes provide an overview of
the scholarly research on the issues related to women and work.
Volume 1, ‘‘Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium,’’
provides an overview of research on comparisons of men and women
REFERENCES
Allan, E., & Madden, M. (2006). Chilly classrooms for female undergraduate
students: A question of method? Journal of Higher Education, 77, 684–
711.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1992). The AAUW
report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2001). Hostile hallways:
Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: AAUW
Educational Foundation.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2002). Title IX at 30:
Report card on gender equity. Washington, DC: Author.
Levy, G., Sadovsky, A., & Troseth, G. (2000). Aspects of young children’s per-
ceptions of gender-typed occupations. Sex Roles, 42, 993–1006.
Naua, M., Epperson, D., & Kahn, J. (1998). A multiple-groups analysis of pre-
dictors of higher level career aspirations among women in mathematics,
science and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483–
496.
Paludi, M., & Fankell-Hauser, J. (1986). An idiographic approach to the study
of women’s achievement strivings. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 89–
100.
Paludi, M., Martin, J., & Paludi, C. (2007). Sexual harassment: The hidden gen-
der equity problem. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity
through education (pp. 215–229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paludi, M., Paludi, C., & DeFour, D. (2004). Introduction: Plus ca change, plus
c’est la meme chose (The more things change, the more they stay the same).
In M. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. xi–xxxi).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Richardson, B., & Sandoval, P. (2007). Impact of education on gender equity in
employment and its outcomes. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving
gender equity through education (pp. 43–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schroeder, P. (1998). 24 Years of housework . . . and the place is still a mess: My life
in politics. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel.
Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the
think-manager-think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.
Siegel, D., & Reis, S. M., (1998). Gender differences in teacher and student per-
ceptions of gifted students’ ability and effort. Gifted Children Quarterly, 42,
39–47.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Facts on women
workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Women in the labor
force: A data book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
White, M., & White, G. (2006). Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereo-
types. Sex Roles, 55, 259–266.
Woman’s idea of government. (1870). New York Herald, p. 6.
complete joy. I had wanted to be a lawyer since I was 9 years old, and
I was finally well on the way toward making that dream a reality.
The 1970s were a heady and exciting time. The group of women
who began law school at UVA that year did not think we were making
history; at least, I did not think I was making history. We were living
our lives and starting a great adventure.
That year, 1970, is considered to be the official beginning of the
women’s movement marked by the first publication of Ms. magazine.
Women had been admitted to University of Virginia’s undergraduate
program under federal court order the previous fall. The first Black
woman, Elaine Jones, had graduated from the law school that June, just
a few months earlier. In my law school class of about 300 students, 17
were women and 12 were Black. Three of these were Black women:
myself, Stephanie Valentine, and Gloria Bouldin. Stephanie and I had
been nursery school classmates. Gloria Bouldin’s mother and my
mother had attended Virginia State College (now Virginia State Univer-
sity) together and had lived in neighboring dormitory rooms. It has
been reported that the fall of 1970 was the first year that the total num-
ber of women law students at UVA reached double digits.
I was excited, in part, because we were destined to be the governors,
senators, judges, law firm partners, and leaders who would run the
country and the economy in the next 20 years. I knew that these fleet-
ing years would forge friendships, bonds, and alliances whose impact
would be important and far-reaching.
In my second year, my fellow students elected me ‘‘president of the
law school,’’ the university’s impressive title for law school’s student
body president. Soon after the election, the press reported that I was
the first woman and the first Black student to be elected to that posi-
tion. That year was magical, fun, and productive. The election itself,
however, led to hundreds of new friendships with students at UVA
and at schools around the country, law school alumni, and government
officials.
Interviewing with law firms in my third year of law school was a
difficult and disappointing experience. I felt fortunate to have been
selected for interviews by several firms. The interviewer from one large
law firm asked me what kind of birth control I used. I was shocked. I
thought it was an entirely inappropriate question. I declined to answer
and ended the interview. Another interviewer, from an Atlanta law
firm, told me that the firm was willing to hire me, but it could not
announce my arrival with the customary written announcement. It was
ready to hire its first Black lawyer, he explained, but the clients had
asked the firm not to ‘‘broadcast’’ it. I had other similarly strange inter-
actions with law firm interviewers. I never reported the incidents to
law school officials (which, in hindsight, I know would have been the
correct action). For many years, I did not share these experiences with
anyone. I had decided that these interviews were a taste of the kind of
degrading behavior I would have to deal with if I chose to work in a
law firm. I abandoned my search for a law firm job and used other
resources to find a job with a government agency or an academic insti-
tution. I know now that the interviewers’ comments did not necessarily
indicate what my future would have been with those firms.
I had four job offers in the spring of 1973. One offer, from the Vir-
ginia attorney general’s office, was to represent educational institutions
in the state of Virginia. The second offer, from the University of Dela-
ware at Newark, was to serve as chairperson of the Black Studies
Department. The third offer was to serve as instructor of law at the
University of Detroit Law School. The fourth offer was to serve as a
staff attorney at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Although I very much wanted to teach law, I dismissed the Detroit
offer. I learned that I would be the only person on the instructional
staff of the law school with the rank of instructor, and the dean could
not explain this low rank to my satisfaction. Sallyanne Payton, a Black
lawyer who was about to move from President Richard Nixon’s
Domestic Policy staff to become chief counsel of the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Administration (UMTA) at the DOT, invited me to be her
special assistant. I knew Sally from having taken a law school course
she taught as an adjunct professor. I reasoned that I could trust her to
train me as a lawyer and to take a personal interest in my career.
MY FIRST JOB
The staff at UMTA was small but diverse. We were seven lawyers:
two Black women (Sally and me), one White woman (another new law-
yer), a gay Black man, and three White men. I was very aware of, and
somewhat uncomfortable with, the distinct difference in status between
the clerical support staff, who were all women, and the lawyers.
At UMTA, I learned how to write a memorandum about the impact
of proposed government actions, how agencies work with Congress,
and how private lobbyists can wield significant power in the legisla-
ture. Our work was largely to make sure that applications for federal
funding for metropolitan bus and subway systems met the require-
ments of our enabling legislation. My major accomplishment at UMTA
was to organize, edit, and publish Developing Mass Transit Systems, a
manual on how to create and finance mass transit systems. We had a
lot of contact with the lawyers and officials who had developed the
Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) in San Francisco and the Met-
ropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA); they contributed
heavily to the publication.
In the spring of 1974, it was time for me to leave the DOT, but I didn’t
know what was next. The opportunity came when I was attending
number to accept the invitation, and the voice that answered said,
‘‘Linda Howard! Well, we finally found you. Come to Washington. We
need you here.’’ The voice belonged to a woman with whom I had
worked in Senator Bentsen’s office.
During those 2 days in Washington, I met the women who were
making history in the Carter administration: Women’s Bureau Director
Alexis Herman, Assistant to the President Sarah Weddington, Assistant
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Donna Shalala, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes
Norton, and several others. Sarah Weddington interviewed me for a
position in her office on a Sunday at 8:30 A.M. About 6 weeks later, I
was driving my Mazda from Columbus, Ohio, back to Washington to
start my fourth job: a member of President Jimmy Carter’s White
House staff.
I took a leave of absence from Ohio State to serve for a year as exec-
utive director of the Interdepartmental Task Force on Women. My 35-
member staff conducted research, created legislative proposals, and
educated the public about issues affecting women. A major focus was
to develop a new Small Business Administration (SBA) program that
provided technical services, access to capital, and guidance for doing
business with the government for women who were business owners.
That year was marked by many speeches, meetings, briefings, and din-
ner parties.
While working at the White House, I completed a law review article
about the rights of women who were being fired or demoted from
high-paying manufacturing jobs that exposed them to toxic chemicals
that could damage their ability to bear healthy children.
In the fall of 1980, I sat in a Georgetown restaurant with Donna Sha-
lala, who, by then, had been named president of Hunter College of the
City University of New York. Donna offered me the job of counsel of
the president at Hunter.
. A study course for new attorneys who had failed the bar exam. The
course dramatically increased the number of our new attorneys who
passed the bar exam.
. An automated system for regular reporting of city cases. The system
allowed the Law Department, for the first time, to report cases by agency,
by the legal unit handling the case, or by status, and it addressed a long-
standing request from the agencies for written reports on the status of all
their cases that were being handled by the Law Department.
At a weekly staff meeting, June said, ‘‘Maybe I’m off base here, but
perhaps we could try some type of incentive program for the sales
staff? Or something like that, something that will motivate them to sell
more? What do you think?’’ After some polite murmuring, the staff
members continued to discuss the problem of flat sales. Later in the
meeting, James said, ‘‘I know. Motivate the salespeople by giving them
rewards based on how much they sell. That should get them excited!’’
Everyone exclaimed about what a great idea this was—everyone except
June, who thought, ‘‘Didn’t I already suggest that?’’
What happened here? Was June guilty of ‘‘speaking while female’’
in a majority-male group? In this chapter, we will look at gender differ-
ences in communication styles: if, and to what extent, they exist; how
they might affect women in the workplace; and communication strat-
egies to improve women’s work experiences.
Affiliative Speech
Affiliative speech refers to the use of words to connect with others,
such as by expressing agreement, understanding, support, or acknowl-
edgement. Tannen (1994) argues that such speech is typical of women’s
more intimate and inclusive approach to communication. In a compre-
hensive meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in adult
speech, Leaper and Ayres (2007) found that although women did
indeed tend to use more affiliative speech than men did, the difference
was very small. There is actually more than an 85% overlap between
men and women in this type of speech.
Assertive Speech
Assertive speech refers to the use of words to achieve a goal or
advance one’s personal position, such as by giving information,
Talkativeness
A strongly held cultural stereotype in the United States is that
women talk more than men. Research, however, reveals the opposite:
Men tend to talk more than women, at least under some circumstances.
Leaper and Ayres (2007) found that men were significantly more talka-
tive than women. There appears to be no gender difference in the num-
ber of words that men and women speak per day (Mehl, Vazire,
Ramirez-Esparza, Slatcher, & Pennebaker, 2007). The difference was
greatest in discussions of impersonal topics or in disagreements and
was reversed when self-disclosures were included—women talked
more in those circumstances. Men also talked more than women in
close relationships than they did with strangers, and they talked in
mixed groups more than in same-gender groups. In the workplace, this
could mean that men will try to dominate conversations when they are
talking with one woman or several women.
Nonverbal Communication
Communication occurs not only via words but also through body lan-
guage (e.g., nods, gestures, body position), facial expressions (e.g., smiles,
frowns), and paralinguistic cues (e.g., speed and timbre of speech). Like
spoken language, nonverbal communication also shows gender differen-
ces, but again they tend to vary with a number of factors.
In general, women tend to nod and smile more than men do, and
their voices tend to be rated higher in warmth than men’s voices (Hall
& Friedman, 1999; Johnson, 1994). These qualities enhance the relational
aspect of communication; in that regard, they parallel the finding that
women are more likely than men to use affiliative speech. Similarly,
men’s vocal utterances are rated higher than women’s on dominance
(Hall & Friedman, 1999), paralleling the finding that men are more likely
than women to use assertive speech. Body movements too can reflect
confidence and dominance (e.g., relaxed gestures, taking up space, ini-
tiating handshakes, maintaining eye contact while speaking), and these
behaviors are more common in men than in women (Henley, 1977).
Smiling is a particularly gendered nonverbal behavior. Although
even women in higher status positions tend to smile more than their
male counterparts (Hall & Friedman, 1999), smiling is more related to
positive affect for high-status and equal-status workers than it is for
low-status workers. Indeed, in many low status service jobs (wait-staff,
supermarket check-out people, airline attendants), smiling may be a job
requirement, especially for women (Hecht & LaFrance, 1998; Hochs-
child, 1983). Women appear to have an advantage over men in accu-
rately decoding the nonverbal cues of others, at least when such cues
are not deliberately deceptive (Hall, 1978; Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979).
This skill can enhance women’s affiliative abilities and be related to
their lower status.
The issue of women’s status is important in examining gendered
communication styles, because such styles do vary by status. Women
in the workforce typically hold lower status jobs than men do. Thus,
what appears as gender differences might actually be status differen-
ces. To examine this, we will next explore various explanations for
gender differences in communication styles.
REFERENCES
Amason, P., & Allen, M. W. (1997). Intraorganizational communication, per-
ceived organizational support, and gender. Sex Roles, 37, 955–977.
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender
divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Basow, S. A. (1998). Student evaluations: The role of gender bias and teaching
styles. In L. H. Collins, J. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Arming Athena: Ca-
reer strategies for women in academe (pp. 135–156). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). ‘‘Troubles talk:’’ Effects of gender and
gender typing. Sex Roles, 48, 183–187.
Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.
Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender,
and influence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68, 1030–1041.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociol-
ogy of gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cowan, K. M., Wilcox, J. R., & Nykodym, N. (1990). A comparative analysis of
female-male communication styles as a function of organizational level.
Communications, 15, 291–309.
Crawford, M., & Kaufman, M. R. (2006). Sex differences versus social processes
in the construction of gender. In K. Dindia & P. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differ-
ences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 179–192). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive
model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.
Dell, S. (1992). A communication-based theory of the glass-ceiling: Rhetorical
sensitivity and upward mobility within the technical organization. Transac-
tions on Professional Communication, 35, 230–235.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving
the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transfor-
mational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis
comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.
Edwards, R., & Hamilton, M. A. (2004). You need to understand my gender
role: An empirical test of Tannen’s model of gender and communication.
Sex Roles, 50, 491–504.
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991).
Social science research on trial: Use of gender stereotyping research in
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060.
Fox, R. L., & Schuhmann, R. A. (1999). Gender and local government: A com-
parison of women and men city managers. Public Administration Review,
59, 231–242.
Friedman, C., & Yorio, K. (2006). The girl’s guide to being a boss (without being a
bitch). New York: Morgan Road Books.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Gender, power dynamics, and social interaction. In
M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 365–398).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hale, M. (1999). He says, she says: Gender and worklife. Public Administration
Review, 59, 410–423.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bul-
letin, 85, 845–857.
Hall, J. A. (2006). Nonverbal behavior, status, and gender: How do we under-
stand their relations? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 384–391.
Hall, J. A., & Friedman, G. B. (1999). Status, gender, and nonverbal behavior: A
study of structured interactions between employees of a company. Person-
ality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1082–1091.
Heatherington, L., Daubman, K. A., Bates, C., Ahn, A., Brown, H., & Preston,
C. (1993). Two investigations of ‘‘female modesty’’ in achievement situa-
tions. Sex Roles, 29, 739–754.
Hecht, M. A., & LaFrance, M. (1998). License or obligation to smile: The effect
of power and gender on amount and type of smiling. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1332–1352.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for
success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 81–92.
Henley, N. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Johnson, C. (1994). Gender, legitimate authority, and leader-subordinate con-
versations. American Sociological Review, 59, 122–135.
Juodvalkis, J. L., Grefe, B. A., Hogue, M., Svyantek, D. J., & DeLamarter, W.
(2003). The effects of job stereotypes, applicant gender, and communication
style on ratings in screening interviews. International Journal of Organiza-
tional Analysis, 11, 67–84.
Kalbfleish, P. J., & Herold, A. L. (2006). Sex, power, and communication. In K.
Dindia & P. J. Canary (Eds.), Gender differences and similarities in communica-
tion (2nd ed., pp. 299–313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kramer, C. (1974). Women’s speech: Separate but unequal. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 60, 14–24.
Kuhlenschmidt, S., & Conger, J. C. (1988). Behavioral components of social
competence in females. Sex Roles, 18, 107–112.
LaPlante, D., & Ambady, N. (2002). Saying it like it isn’t: Mixed messages from men
and women in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2435–2457.
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations
in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive
speech. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363.
Lentz, T. M. (1986). Communication difficulties in a large federal agency. Amer-
ican Behavioral Scientist, 29, 303–319.
Lindsey, A. E., & Zakahi, W. R. (2006). Perceptions of men and women depart-
ing from conversational sex-role stereotypes. In K. Dindia & P. J. Canary
(Eds.), Gender differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 281–298).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
On Work-Life Balance:
In My Own Voice
Michelle Wildgrube
had days when she felt sure she was doing nothing well. I could now
understand the struggle and challenge involved in spending quality
time with my family and doing my job in a competent manner. There
were days when it seemed as if everyone was getting short shrift.
After my daughter turned 1 year old and my year-long obligation to
the firm was complete, I asked the partners if I could work part-time. I
wanted to spend more time with my daughter and my husband. I pro-
posed working 5 days a week until 3 P.M. I thought that would be a
good compromise—I’d be in the office for most of the day, and I could
spend time with my daughter in the late afternoon, avoiding (I hoped)
the evening rush of day care, dinner preparation, and bedtime routine.
My request was denied.
I started to consider my options. Unfortunately, at the time, which
was 1997, I didn’t know of any attorneys in private practice law firms
who worked part-time. The women who had the flexibility were solo
practitioners or worked for the government. I found it difficult to put
together a model of part-time private law practice, because there were
no local examples to observe. Although I struggled with the firm cul-
ture, I knew that I still wanted a career in private practice. I liked the
camaraderie with staff and clients, I liked being able to work with the
people in my community. So I started to network, seeking support for
my ideas. I hoped to work at a firm, because I appreciated the support
that a firm could offer and I liked private practice. I also wanted to
work with other attorneys because I saw the value of sharing ideas
and legal theories with other attorneys in the office; in addition, I
thought that a firm offered clients more options.
I shared my dream of part-time work with other attorneys with
whom I worked in the community. One of the people I talked to was
my friend, Deb Slezak, who was an associate at a small firm, Carpenter
& Cioffi, which was located close to my home. Deb suggested that I
talk to the partners at her office; she explained that there were a lot of
part-time employees at Carpenter & Cioffi.
At a luncheon in the spring of 1998, I had the opportunity to speak
with Cris Cioffi, and I mentioned that I was interested in a part-time
job. Cris explained that at the time, the office of Carpenter & Cioffi
didn’t have the physical space for another person. I waited. A year
later, Deb told me that the firm had expanded its office space and had
the space it needed to add another attorney. I called Cris Cioffi again,
and she invited me to the office to meet with her and her partner,
Howard Carpenter. By then, I was 8 months pregnant with my second
daughter, Zo€e. Cris and Howard asked me what I was looking for in a
job, and I said that I was looking to work part-time, 3 days a week. I
suggested Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays; my theory was that Fri-
day was a quieter day and people could excuse me for being out then.
By the time I got home after the interview, there was a message on my
phone machine from Howard, and when I called back, I was offered
the part-time job—my dream job.
When I gave notice that I would not be returning after my (second)
maternity leave because I’d been offered employment at Carpenter &
Cioffi, the firm asked me to consider staying and also offered me part-
time employment. The firm’s proposal was for me to work from 9 A.M.
to 4 P.M. every day, to be compensated at a reduced rate, and to take
an additional pay cut because I wouldn’t be maximizing the office
space. In effect, the firm was proposing to rent my office to me during
the work hours that I wasn’t there. I thought that was an outrageous
offer, and I declined it.
In the summer of 1999, after taking nearly 4 months for a maternity
leave (a glorious and memorable amount of time!), I started work at
Carpenter & Cioffi on a part-time basis. This was a launching point for
me, embarking on part-time work as an attorney and finally getting to
spend weekday time with my children.
There were immediate surprises and rewards in working part-time.
I found that I was more productive working on Mondays, Tuesdays,
and Thursdays instead of for a full week. I am a conscientious em-
ployee, and I would never have questioned my productivity while I
was working full time; after all, I work in a business in which we keep
track of all our hours and everything we do, billable and nonbillable. I
used to joke that before I worked at Carpenter & Cioffi, I wrote down
my hours when I blew my nose or went to the ladies’ room. So it was
a surprise that even though I was working at a firm that was a bit
more casual and relaxed, I was billing even more effectively.
One of the reasons for my increased effectiveness was that working
part-time created more deadlines. Because I am committed to returning
phone calls and getting tasks done in a timely manner, the days at
home created deadlines on a weekly basis. As a result, if I had a client
in on a Monday, I’d work to have an answer by Tuesday, because if I
didn’t, the client wouldn’t hear from me until Thursday, which, in my
opinion, was too long to wait. By completing tasks before my days off,
I ensured that my clients were happy and that it would be less likely
that my office would call me at home for emergencies.
I’m sure that it also helped that I was better rested, more relaxed, and
happier with my life than I’d ever been as a working mother. Because I
was a nursing mom, just knowing that I could sleep in on Wednesdays
and Fridays was a huge help. I was more focused and better able to con-
centrate at work. It is impossible to sustain a high level of intensity on a
constant basis, and working full-time dilutes this ability. Working part-
time, I could stay intensely focused for longer periods, because I had
regular day-long breaks from the practice of law. My clients also had
the benefit of the rest, because I could use my downtime on days off to
mentally work through some of their challenges.
lucky to have a staff of very talented women who appreciate the con-
cept of teamwork and who work together to provide excellent legal
services to our clients. Because we are amenable to part-time schedules,
we have been able to hire great people who want to work outside the
home but also spend time with their families. It’s not a compromise to
hire part-time employees, it’s good business.
one of two stereotypes: (a) the motherly type, who is warm, nurturing,
patient, and wants to befriend her employees, and (b) the ‘‘bitch on
wheels,’’ who has a bad attitude and is on a power trip, like the
women in the films mentioned above.
Women often say that the best thing about working for a woman is
that there are no concerns about sexual harassment; men often say that
the best thing is that they can ‘‘turn on the charm’’ and manipulate a
women boss into ‘‘cutting them some slack’’ on the job. Both men and
women prefer the motherly type of boss, although both often comment
that she is not an authority figure and doesn’t command the respect of
her employees. Over the years a common answer to the question of
whether people would like to work for a woman is ‘‘Of course, if she’s
competent.’’ However, women bosses must prove their competence to
skeptical subordinates, whereas the competence of male bosses is
assumed until proven otherwise.
In 2002, U.S. businesses employed approximately equal numbers of
women (46.5%) and men (53.5%), and women held approximately half
(50.5%) of management and specialty positions. Nearly half (46%) of
privately held businesses were owned by women, who, in recent years,
have been starting their own businesses at a higher rate than men have
(Catalyst, 2007). However, when we look at the higher echelons of
major societal institutions, we find far fewer women than the numbers
above might lead us to expect. Women make up 15.7% of corporate
officers and 13.6% of corporate boards of directors, according to Cata-
lyst, but they are only 2.6% of the CEOs of the 500 largest corporations
headquartered in the U.S. (‘‘The Fortune 500,’’ 2006). Women constitute
only 14% of the U.S. Senate, 15.6% of the U.S. House of Representa-
tives, 24.8% of state governors, and 1 of the 9 Supreme Court justices
(Center for the American Woman and Politics, 2006). Women are only
5% of the highest ranked officers in the U.S. military (U.S. Department
of Defense, 2006). It is still lonely at the top for women.
These statistics are ample evidence that women who aspire to lead-
ership positions must negotiate many barriers, and there is a consider-
able amount of research that describes how qualified women are
blocked on their way to the top of their fields. However, it is important
to look beyond this harsh reality to explore what happens to women
who do make it off the sticky floor and through the glass ceiling to
occupy positions of authority. In this chapter we focus on how women
leaders are perceived by their subordinates and what can be done to
increase the effectiveness of women leaders in uncongenial contexts.
ROLE INCONGRUITY
Gender-role stereotypes are so well known that they are easily and
automatically activated (Eagly, 2003). Therefore, if a woman occupies a
position that requires characteristics that women as a group are not
expected to have, she will typically receive a lower performance evalu-
ation than her male counterparts. When people encounter particular
women in positions that are not believed to be congruent with the abil-
ities and characteristics of women in general, they tend to devalue the
women’s work, attribute the women’s success to external factors rather
than to their competence, or dislike and reject the women when their
success cannot be attributed to external factors (Carli & Eagly, 2001).
Service-oriented, communal traits are valued in women and are a cen-
tral part of women’s prescriptive norms. Traits that are valued in men
and considered de rigueur for successful leaders (e.g., assertiveness,
toughness, ambition) conflict with women’s prescriptive behaviors
(Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). When women take on lead-
ership roles, especially roles that require more agentic or ‘‘masculine’’
characteristics, observers are forced to evaluate those women in their
conflicting roles as women and as leaders. That is, people have to work
harder when they think about their woman bosses because they have to
consider divergent sets of characteristics (those of women and those of
managers), whereas when people think about their male bosses, only
one set of characteristics comes into play because of the redundant
expectations (i.e., think manager, think male) (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
When people are in the minority of a group (e.g., the only woman man-
ager, the only Black manager), more attention is focused on the aspects
that cause them to stand out, and when token status is combined with
other feminine personal qualities or characteristics (e.g., pregnancy, a
short skirt, a low-cut blouse), it can be especially disadvantageous to
women leaders because it reminds observers of the role conflict between
gender and position. The more these roles seem to be in conflict, the
greater the prejudice a woman leader will face.
Society’s overall approval of agentic qualities in men and communal
qualities in women leads to a general approval of men and disapproval
of women in high-level leadership positions. Despite decades of behav-
ioral science research that shows that women and men are more alike
than different (Hyde, 2005), most people believe that men and women
should differ (Eagly & Karau, 2002). This belief can lead to social
penalties for women and men who behave in ways that are distinctly
counter to gender normative patterns, such as women who are not
skilled at comforting a friend in distress (Holmstrom, Burleson, &
Jones, 2005). Competent women are often depicted as cold and unde-
sirable group members, and successful woman managers have been
described as having much worse personalities (e.g., bitter, quarrelsome,
selfish, deceitful, devious) than successful male managers. Thus,
women who achieve career success are often seen not as neutral parties
but as hostile and counter-communal individuals (Heilman et al.,
2004)—much like the characters in the films mentioned above.
When women are not in violation of their gender role, there is a
tendency for people to react more favorably to women than to men
and to report that they like women better than men (Carli, 1999; Heil-
man et al., 2004). When women occupy leadership roles that are con-
sidered feminine—that are believed to require interpersonal skills, such
as the ability to get along well with others—they are often judged as
more effective than men in the same roles (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani,
1995). This suggests that male bosses may also be subjected to gender
prejudice when they hold leadership positions that are judged to
require stereotypically feminine traits.
power bases defined by French and Raven (1959): (a) reward (the abil-
ity to provide positive outcomes), (b) coercion (the ability to provide
negative outcomes), (c) expertise (the possession of special knowledge
or skills that others do not have), (d) information (the ability to per-
suade by argument, such as giving good reasons for the requested
action), (e) referent (the ability to persuade by virtue of a personal rela-
tionship, e.g., ‘‘do it for me,’’ ‘‘we’re a team’’), and (f) legitimate (the
‘‘right’’ to influence by virtue of one’s position in a hierarchy).
For example, the ‘‘motherly type’’ so often described by Chrisler’s
students exerts her power through the reference, reward, and informa-
tion power bases. However, her expertise and legitimacy are often
questioned by her employees, who are also unlikely to believe her if
she threatens them with coercion. Because the typical male boss has
easier access to more of these power bases than the typical woman
boss does, he is more likely to exercise power directly, whereas she is
more likely to exercise it indirectly (Carli, 1999). Power exercised indi-
rectly is often effective in the short term, but if subordinates do not re-
alize that they have been influenced by their superior, they do not tend
to see their superior as an effective leader.
1986), and men tend to have more latitude than women do to lead in a
variety of masculine and feminine styles without experiencing negative
consequences in their evaluations by others (Pratch & Jacobowitz,
1996). For example, as noted above, women can find it more difficult to
exert influence through legitimate or expert means, especially early in
their careers. As they gain legitimate and expert power, they tend to
lose referent power, which can factor into the perception of women
bosses as either competent or nice.
Different situations require the use of different influence strategies.
Although men have access to more power bases than women do—
especially to legitimacy, expertise, and coercion—it should not be
assumed that men will rely more heavily on those methods of influ-
ence. Research has shown that dominance and coercion are less likely
to motivate subordinates than other more benevolent forms of power
are, unless the subordinates believe that they have something impor-
tant to gain; people generally dislike domineering individuals and
resist them whenever possible (Carli, 1999). Both women and men tend
to avoid direct disagreement and negative or aggressive influence strat-
egies. Although men do use these strategies more than women do,
most men prefer not to rely on them too often (Carli, 1999).
Although men often might prefer to use referent power, the fact that
they have access to all the power bases allows them greater flexibility
to function as leaders in any situation. This advantage results in a
greater variety of positive outcomes for men than for women, includ-
ing greater upward influence (Hollander & Offermann, 1990) and more
credit for leadership success, even when subordinates are disadvan-
taged by particular actions.
Ambition
Ambition is a central aspect of the American dream, as codified in
Horatio Alger’s popular series of 19th-century novels. In fact, his her-
oes (e.g., Ragged Dick, Tattered Tom, Paul the Peddler) had little to
sustain them, yet their drive to succeed eventually made them both
rich and successful. Generations of American boys were encouraged to
emulate Alger’s characters, and to describe a man as ambitious is con-
sidered a compliment. However, the word ambitious applied to women
is at best ambivalent. The word is often said in an acid tone that clearly
suggests disapproval of a woman who has overreached.
Today’s girls, unlike those of the 19th century, are encouraged to de-
velop their talents and to set goals for themselves. They have no
colleagues (1995) found that both women and men tend to emphasize
task accomplishment when they occupy a gender-congruent leadership
role in which most of their subordinates are of the same gender. The
small gender difference in transactional versus transformational leader-
ship style might be due to the fact that male bosses are more often
found in gender-congruent positions, and female bosses are more often
found in gender-incongruent positions, because most leadership posi-
tions are still considered to be masculine roles.
Participative Leadership
In follow-up interviews with respondents in a survey of leaders that
was conducted by the Independent Women’s Forum, Rosener (1990)
asked women who had characterized themselves as transformational
leaders how they thought their style differed from traditional mascu-
line conceptions of leadership. Rosener labeled these women’s style
‘‘interactive’’ or ‘‘participative’’ leadership, in which the women en-
courage participation in decision making, share power and informa-
tion, and enhance others’ self-worth. Rosener’s respondents generally
agreed that people perform best when they feel good about themselves
and their work, and her respondents said that they try to create an
environment conducive to this dynamic. Research has shown that a
supportive social environment, increased responsibility and participa-
tion, and the perception that one’s work is valued all increase workers’
motivation (Katzell & Thompson, 1990).
Successful leadership depends in part on reciprocity and the poten-
tial for two-way influence and power sharing (Hollander & Offermann,
1990). The women interviewed by Rosener (1990) reported that they try
to make their subordinates feel involved with the organization
by allowing them to have a say in nearly all aspects of their work and by
providing them with the information that is necessary to understand
and participate fully in the goals of the organization. Such participation
increases support for managerial decisions and increases employees’
motivation. When employees believe that the boss trusts them and
wants their input, it increases loyalty and information flow in both
directions. Subordinates readily communicate new ideas, and they let
the boss know when there are problems. Furthermore, the delegation
of some decision making to subordinates is associated with better em-
ployee performance (Hollander & Offermann, 1990).
Although participative leadership has clear advantages, there are also
potential disadvantages. The women interviewed by Rosener (1990)
acknowledged that their efforts to include everyone in decision making
could be seen as merely symbolic if the boss decides not to take the
employees’ advice. It takes time to solicit input from employees, and
giving up some power and control by delegating responsibility can leave
Female-Friendly Organizations
Although women might have an advantage in participative leader-
ship, Rosener (1990) pointed out that this style works well only in
organizations that are willing to accept it. Only one of the women she
interviewed worked in an established, major corporation; all the others
worked in medium-size, fast-growing, and fast-changing companies.
Such companies tend to employ large percentages of educated profes-
sionals who want to be involved and challenged and who might have
specialized knowledge that their bosses do not share. This type of
organizational environment requires collaboration between superiors
and subordinates so that the company can utilize the full potential of
all the workers. Fast-changing companies emphasize performance
above all else, and they require flexible and innovative leaders. Being
part of an ‘‘old boys’’’ network is often irrelevant in those workplaces.
Women who want to be participative leaders will find it more diffi-
cult to deviate from traditional leadership styles when they work in
hierarchical, traditionally masculine organizations, such as investment
study (Goleman, 2004) showed that 90% of the difference between star
performers and average performers in senior management positions
could be attributed to emotional intelligence rather than to cognitive
abilities. Men in the United States are socialized to view most emotions
as unacceptable and unmasculine (Kilmartin, 2007). Therefore, many
men are not good at understanding their own emotions (let alone those
of others), which makes critical components of emotional intelligence
(e.g., self-awareness, empathy) difficult for them. Women, on the other
hand, have been socialized to pay close attention to emotions, both
their own and others’, which gives them more opportunities to develop
and practice the components of emotional intelligence.
had wives who were not employed outside the home; the smaller num-
ber of female managers had both paid (female) help and husbands
who took substantial responsibility for child care. Women who lack the
financial and social resources of Brett and Stroh’s participants are
unlikely to reach high management levels, and most woman managers
cope with greater amounts of stress and role conflict than men, as well
as with the sometimes hostile disapproval of coworkers who think that
the women are letting their families down.
Female executives are less likely than male managers to be married
and to have children (Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Although senior-
level men and women both stressed the need to work long hours and
to put work ahead of family in order to succeed in certain careers,
women, but not men, often believe that they must sacrifice family life
altogether if they want to pursue careers that have been structured for
men with stay-at-home wives (Fels, 2004). Woman managers who do
have children report doing significantly more hours of child care and
housework than their male peers do; however, these women and men
still devote a similar number of hours to their careers (Lyness &
Thompson, 1997).
These women must take care not to let the stresses of the work–family
juggling act show on the job; any tense exchanges or episodes of
shortness of temper could cause their subordinates to move them from
the ‘‘motherly type’’ to the ‘‘bitch on wheels’’ boss category. Social psy-
chology research has shown that the terms feminist and career woman
are ‘‘synonymous with derogatory stereotypes of women who are not
nice and not feminine enough’’ (Goodwin & Fiske, 2001, p. 361).
(Lyness & Thompson, 1997). One study (Sackett, DuBois, & Noe, 1991)
showed that women’s performance was rated lower than men’s when
women made up less than 20% of a group, whereas women’s perform-
ance was rated higher than men’s when the percentage of women was
above 50%. Thus, negative stereotypes of women seem to decrease as
the percentage of women in a group or a job category increases. Token-
ism can have negative effects on the way that the tokens perceive
themselves as well as on the ways that they are perceived by others.
The increased attention to and salience of tokens tends to result in an
increased self-focus on the part of the token, which leads to anxiety
and to unrealistic self-expectations of perfect behavior on the job
(Biernat et al., 1998).
Token women are particularly vulnerable to the perception that they
were preferentially selected for their positions on the basis of their gen-
der, which can cause subordinates to doubt a woman’s competence
and to treat her disrespectfully. Rumors about reasons other than merit
for a woman’s hiring or promotion can lead the woman herself to
doubt her competence, devalue her own accomplishments and capabil-
ities, shake her confidence, and lower her motivation to succeed in her
leadership role (Heilman et al., 1991). Unlike women’s competence,
which is often in doubt until proven, a man’s competence is usually
assumed until disproved, even in cases in which reasons other than
merit are believed to account for his hiring (e.g., he’s the CEO’s son-in-
law). When people are unsure of their abilities, they tend to choose
assignments that are easily within their reach (Bandura, 1977); thus,
women managers whose self-confidence has been shaken by fear of
preferential selection might play it safe and not seek out challenging
opportunities in which they can show the true extent of their abilities
(Heilman et al., 1991).
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is generally defined in two categories: quid pro
quo harassment, in which sexual conduct is required to receive or to
keep a job, a promotion, or job-related benefits; and hostile environ-
ment harassment, in which unwelcome sexual conduct interferes with
an individual’s job performance and creates a hostile, offensive work
environment. Most researchers have focused on women as the victims
of sexual harassment and have assumed that such harassment can
occur only if the offender has formal power over or higher status than
the victim (McKinney, 1992). The very definition of quid pro quo har-
assment is based on a superior harassing a subordinate, for subordi-
nates generally do not possess the organizational power to make
sexual conduct a condition of a superior’s employment. However, any-
one can create a hostile environment, and people in positions of
clear that the organization values the woman’s experience and exper-
tise and has confidence in her abilities (Hogue et al., 2002). The
announcement of a new leader’s hiring or promotion should contain a
summary of that person’s credentials and accomplishments, so that a
woman in that position will not have to run the risk of being deni-
grated for bragging if she shares that information herself. Future
accomplishments could be announced in e-mail messages or in news-
letters prepared by the human resources department so that everyone
is aware that the boss (as well as her subordinates) is productive and
deserving of respect.
Organizations can help women leaders to succeed by providing
them with the support and resources they need to do their jobs effec-
tively, for the power of a leadership role can be enhanced or dimin-
ished by the resources that are available to the leader. This is related to
the finding that women’s influence is enhanced when men are placed
in situations in which they can benefit from her competence (Carli,
1999, 2001). The more resources a woman has that can be used in the
form of reward power, the more motivation her subordinates have to
view her positively.
Organizations must develop and enforce clear policies about gender
equality to create a climate that is favorable to women at all levels of
the organization. Furthermore, these policies should be integrated into
employee training. For example, information about contrapower har-
assment should be presented in anti–sexual harassment training. Social
psychology research (Goodwin & Fiske, 2001) shows that when people
are specifically ‘‘instructed to be as accurate as possible’’ in rating job
applicants or evaluating their managers or employees, ‘‘they can and
do provide less stereotypic[al] impressions’’ than they would otherwise
(p. 365).
Thus, training for managers and hiring committees should include
these instructions, and objective measurements (e.g., rating scales) that
also include these instructions should be utilized at all levels of an or-
ganization. It has often been noted that the highest echelon of leader-
ship in any organization sets the tone for the entire organization and
creates the climate that pervades it. If the leaders at the top set an
example of valuing and respecting female and male employees equally,
their views will have a positive effect on the dynamics of the organiza-
tion at all levels.
CONCLUSION
Although it is discouraging that women fare poorly in highly mas-
culine leadership contexts, it is encouraging that women fare somewhat
better than men do when leadership is defined in more androgynous
terms. Men still have access to a wider range of power bases, and they
are free to influence others by using any of those power bases without
consequences. Women, however, are more likely than men to have
developed the influence strategies that are required to excel in the
emergent contemporary workplace. As the communal components of
leadership become increasingly valued and the androgynous nature of
effective leadership is increasingly recognized, the bias against woman
bosses should diminish. In the meantime, there continues to be a
‘‘narrow band of acceptable behavior’’ that is allowed for woman lead-
ers—‘‘behaviors that are somewhat feminine but not too feminine and
somewhat masculine but not too masculine’’ (Eagly, 2003, p. 91).
Women and men alike will benefit from a new conception of leader-
ship, because the traditional notion of the ‘‘great man’’ excludes not
only women but also men who are not ‘‘born with’’ leadership ability.
Effective leadership is both an art and a science; it requires a relentless
dedication to the development of the skills and abilities that are neces-
sary to move people toward a common goal. The cultural embrace of
the androgynous leader will serve to access the large untapped poten-
tial of women as well as to enlighten current leaders of both sexes and
increase the effectiveness of all who currently hold, or hope to hold,
leadership positions. We look forward to the day that woman bosses
are described, evaluated, and appreciated for themselves and their
own leadership styles rather than for their adaptation to cultural ster-
eotypes such as ‘‘good witch,’’ ‘‘bad bitch,’’ or ‘‘mother.’’ We hope that
the wait will not be very long.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Berg, J. H., Stephan, W. G., & Dodson, M. (1981). Attributional modesty in
women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 711–727.
Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., & Halpin, S. M.
(1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self and others in a military
context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 301–317.
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between
gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662–669.
Brett, J., & Stroh, L. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Who do manager
do it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 67–78.
Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female
leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 48–59.
Cann, A., & Siegfried, W. D. (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions of
effective leaders behavior. Gender Roles, 23, 413–419.
Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576.
Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of
Social Issues, 55, 81–99.
Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
725–741.
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and leadership: An intro-
duction. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 629–636.
Catalyst. (2007). Bureau of Labor Statistics current population survey annual aver-
ages 2003. Available online at www.catalyst.org/files/tid/tidbits04.pdf.
Center for the American Woman and Politics. (2006). Fact sheet. Available
online at www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts.html#cabinet.
Chrisler, J. C. (1998). Teacher versus scholar: Role conflict for women? In L. H.
Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Arming Athena: Career strategies
for women in academe (pp. 107–127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chrisler, J. C., Herr, L., & Murstein, N. K. (1998). Women as faculty leaders. In
L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Arming Athena: Career strat-
egies for women in academe (pp. 189–209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clapp, Sarah K. (2007). Contrapower sexual harassment of military officers. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, Connecticut College, New London, CT.
Collins, L. H. (1998). Competition and contact: The dynamics behind resistance
to affirmative action. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.),
Arming Athena: Career strategies for women in academe (pp. 45–74). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crittenden, K. S., & Wiley, M. G. (1980). Causal attribution and behavioral
response to failure. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 353–358.
Crittenden, K. S., & Wiley, M. G. (1985). When egotism is normative: Self-
presentational norms guiding attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48,
360–365.
Crosby, F. J. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral
Scientist, 27, 371–386.
DeSouza, E., & Fansler, A. G. (2003). Contrapower sexual harassment: A survey
of students and faculty members. Gender Roles, 48, 529–542.
Drucker, P. (1991, November/December). The new productivity challenge.
Harvard Business Review, pp. 69–79.
Eagly, A. H. (2003). Few women at the top: How role incongruity produces
prejudice and the glass ceiling. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg
(Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations
(pp. 79–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving
the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannsen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of
women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797.
Tolbert, P. S., Simons, T., Andrews, A., & Rhee, J. (1995). The effects of gender
composition in academic departments on faculty turnover. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 48, 562–579.
Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1994). ‘‘Let me put it this way, John’’: Conversational strat-
egies of women in leadership positions. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 199–209.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2006). Active duty military personnel by service
rank/grade. Available online at http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/
MILITARY/Miltop.htm.
Wiley, M. G., & Crittenden, K. S. (1992). By your attribution shall you be
known: Consequences of attributional accounts for professional and gen-
der identities. Gender Roles, 27, 259–276.
Willemsen, T. M. (2002). Gender typing of the successful manager: A stereo-
type reconsidered. Gender Roles, 46, 385–391.
Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women.
Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828.
Because women constitute more than 51% of the U.S. population and
47% of the workforce (Lowrey, 2006), women’s concerns are becoming
increasingly important as the business world seeks to obtain and retain
a qualified workforce. Given that women provide the majority of labor
within the home, alternate types of employment are becoming increas-
ingly popular as individuals, particularly women, seek to balance their
work and family commitments. Among these alternative business
arrangements is entrepreneurship, which is attractive to many because
of its potential flexibility compared to the conditions of a traditional
working environment.
Table 5-1.
U.S. Firms, by Gender of Owner and Sales, 2002
Average
Sales and number of Average Average
Number of Percentage receipts Number of employees sales per payroll per
firms of firms ($ trillion)* employees per firm employee ($)a employee ($)a
U.S. Firms (total) 5,524,784 24.05% 21.84 110,766,605 20.05 197,137 34,419
Female-Owned with Employees 916,657 14.13% 0.80 7,141,369 7.79 112,423 24,299
Male-Owned with Employees 3,524,969 26.74% 6.60 42,428,508 12.04 154,709 31,108
Equally Female- and Male- 717,961 26.66% 0.63 5,664,948 7.89 110,716 22,895
Owned with Employees
Other 352,720 71.34% 13.80 55,398,389 157.06 249,050 39,453
a
Not inflation-adjusted.
and geographical and cultural issues (Menzies, 2004). The following sec-
tion discusses factors in entrepreneurship that are often thought to differ
between men and women.
I think that running your own business and being your own boss has tre-
mendous satisfactions and real benefits that are never or have not been
extolled. You are always told [that] it is difficult and [that] you may have
losses, but [you] are not told of the wonderful benefits of running your own
business. I enjoy working for myself. It provides me with the flexibility I
need and the creative expression necessary to run a successful business.
Growth Intention
The statistics on woman-owned businesses show that a lot of them
tend to be small. Researchers do not agree on whether this is the result
Some studies even find that the modest growth intention of women
business owners is a myth that represents a hurdle for them, in terms
of acknowledgment of their entrepreneurial activity, but especially
when seeking funding for their venture (Brush, Carter, Gatewood,
Greene, & Hart, 2001; Menzies, 2004).
Access to Capital
A lack of access to funds to finance their venture is often mentioned
as an obstacle for women entrepreneurs. Although improvements in
access to capital are also reported, women business owners do in fact
acquire less funding than their male counterparts do. In 1998, 54% of
women entrepreneurs had bank credit, compared to 46% in 1996. Of
those women with bank credit, only 34% had credit higher than $50,000,
compared to 54% of male business owners with bank credit. Even more
striking is the low number of venture funds received by women. In
2003, only 4.2% of the $19 billion of venture capital was invested into
woman-owned businesses (National Women’s Business Council, 2005).
All the entrepreneurs in our study personally financed their new busi-
ness venture through either family capital and personal savings or credit
cards. It was not until the business was up and running that access to
more traditional lending sources, such as banks, became available.
Insufficient funds are a plausible reason that prevent women’s busi-
nesses from growing. However, this is not necessarily the result of
gender-based discrimination by suppliers of capital; there are studies that
show that female and male entrepreneurs are equally likely to receive
funding when they apply for it, but that women seek capital less often
than men do (De Bruin, Bush, & Welter, 2006). One possible reason for
this is that women’s businesses operate mainly in the service sector,
which usually is not very capital-intensive. Moreover, service compa-
nies tend to have few assets that can be used as collateral for loans
(Cleaver, 2004). According to the Center for Women’s Business
Research (2003), only about 25% of woman entrepreneurs (except Afri-
can-American women, among whom this percentage is significantly
higher) stated that they have encountered hurdles when searching for
funding for their venture. Woman entrepreneurs in the same study
reported that the reasons for the difficulties in funding their business
were personal risk aversion, gender discrimination, and hesitant invest-
ors because of a weak economy.
(Coughlin, 2002). One fact that highlights this is the gender difference
in the numbers of single parents who are raising children under the
age of 18: In 2004 about 8.3 million single mothers (i.e., in almost 25%
of U.S. families) were doing so, but only 2.3 million single fathers were
doing so (Lowrey, 2006).
Family is often argued to play a more important role for women
than for men. Women not only still tend to carry the main proportion
of domestic responsibilities, they also tend to build their social network
in a way that is more dependent on family ties; this links them closer
to the family than men, who were found to have more diverse net-
works outside the family (Brush, 1992). For many women entrepre-
neurs, the family played an important role in the decision to found a
business—for example, to achieve a higher flexibility in work–life bal-
ance, such as in combining family responsibilities and professional
achievement (Jome, Donahue, & Siegel, 2006; Lee-Gosselin & Grise,
1990). This fits well with the finding that the presence of young chil-
dren in the household increases women’s likelihood of founding a
business (Caputo & Dolinsky, 1998).
Networks
One factor affecting entrepreneurship that is different for men and
women is networks and the social capital inherent in them. Although
no significant differences in the process of making contacts and build-
ing networks have been found between the genders, differences in the
composition of male and female networks have been discovered. Com-
pared to men, women tend to have smaller social networks as well as
networks with a higher proportion of women, which was found to be
disadvantageous in entrepreneurship (Brush, 1992). Because many
business networks are still male-dominated, favoritism shown toward
men is likely to create difficulties for women in the traditional labor
market as well as in entrepreneurial networks, such as with customers,
suppliers, or investors (Weiler & Bernasek, 2001). Renzulli, Aldrich,
and Moody (2000) confirmed that the composition of social networks
differs among the genders; however, they did not find that this leads
to disadvantages for women entrepreneurs. They suggest that, because
of the empowerment that women have experienced in the last few dec-
ades, the social capital of women’s networks has become more valuable
for business.
Virtually all of the interview participants cited a member of their
own family as their mentor, mainly their parents. The sole individual
who cited someone else as a mentor named a spiritual figure on whom
she had based her beliefs. Though certainly helpful, these mentors, by
and large, cannot open doors in the same manner that a business men-
tor can.
businesses were owned by each minority and how many of these were
owned by women of that minority. In every minority category, the per-
centage of businesses owned by women of that minority was higher than
for White women. Whereas only about 28% of all White business owners
were women, almost 46% of all Black business owners were women.
However, when we look at the average performance of women-
owned businesses in terms of receipts per firm, we see that there is a
large gap between, on the one hand, the Black or African-American,
American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander businesses and, on the other hand, the White and
Asian businesses. As depicted in Table 5-4 (U.S. Census Bureau, 200b),
Table 5-3.
Ownership of Firms by Gender and Race
Percentage of
Total number of Number of female-owned
firms (male- and female-owned firms for all firms
Race female-owned) firms of that race
Table 5-4.
Female-Owned Firms by Race
Number of
female-owned Receipts Receipts per
Race firms ($1,000) firm ($1,000)
Access to Capital
There are several ways to ease the access to capital for women entre-
preneurs. First, measures like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of
1974 can be implemented to facilitate the regular process of getting
credit.
Second, there are attempts to make it easier for women to obtain
venture capital. An important factor that makes it difficult for women
to obtain venture funding is limited access to male-dominated venture
capital networks. Contacts with advisors, like accountants, attorneys, or
fellow business owners, are a means by which women business owners
get venture funding (Wells Fargo, 2000), and attempts are being made
to institutionalize such access (Sherman, 2002). One essential source of
support for women entrepreneurs (and small-business owners in gen-
eral) is the loan programs of the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA). These provide guarantees for loans made by private and other
institutions. In 2003, the SBA backed women-owned businesses with
$2.4 billion (National Women’s Business Council, 2004).
Furthermore, private institutions are increasing their support of
women business owners. Realizing that this group has a strong eco-
nomic base, several banks started programs with the intention of
Mentoring
Another way to facilitate entrepreneurship for women is to provide
them with a mentor. A mentor for a women entrepreneur is a business
owner or an experienced person from a financial, legal, or other profes-
sion who gives advice, support, guidance, and training to the mentee.
The mentor can be viewed as a trusted counselor, and, often even more
important, acts as a role model for the mentee (Coughlin, 2002). It has
been shown that people are more likely to ‘‘do what they see’’; for
example, it was found that people who have an early exposure to an en-
trepreneurial relative or close friend are more likely to become entrepre-
neurs themselves (Jones, 2002). However, it is still harder for women
than for men to find an entrepreneurial role model who is in a similar
life situation, because there are still fewer female than male entrepre-
neurs. Mentoring institutionalizes the process of finding such a role
model and provides learning opportunities, coaching, and networking.
Education
Formal education on entrepreneurship makes entrepreneurial activ-
ity more likely (Zhao et al., 2005). Besides entrepreneurship classes in
colleges and universities that target everybody regardless of gender,
institutions that specifically aim at educating women on entrepreneur-
ship are a means by which to enhance female entrepreneurial activity.
Women’s business centers play an important role in entrepreneurial
education, training, and technical assistance for women (Langowitz et
al., 2006). In the United States, about 2,200 entrepreneurship courses
are offered at 1,600 colleges (De Bruin et al., 2006).
In terms of general education, the achievements of certain educa-
tional levels are similar for both sexes. However, the educational back-
grounds of women and men vary. Women obtain fewer degrees than
men in technological subjects such as science and engineering. More-
over, the number of high-technology ventures is significantly higher
among male entrepreneurs, making the venture more likely to be
funded by venture capitalists. If we may assume that the former is a
cause of the latter, then it is clear that programs that encourage women
to study computer science and engineering are an important step in
improving women’s position in entrepreneurship (Menzies, 2004).
Networking
Being part of a network is important for entrepreneurs—for exam-
ple, to obtain business, capital, or information. With a network in
INTERNET RESOURCES
Finally, for readers who want additional information on women
entrepreneurs or for those who are seeking support while founding
or running a business, the following Internet resources can be helpful.
The list is not exhaustive, but is a good starting point for further
research.
REFERENCES
Allen, E., Langowitz, N., Minitti, M. (2007). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2006
Report on women and entrepreneurship. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.
Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., & Hirsa, A. (2001). Perceptions of women and
men as entrepreneurs: Evidence for differential effects of attributional aug-
menting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 923–929.
Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new
perspective, and future directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16,
5–30.
Brush, C., Carter, N. Gatewood, E., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (2001). The Diana
Project women business owners and equity capital: The myths dispelled. Kansas
City, MO: Kauffman Center.
Caputo, R. K., & Dolinsky, A. (1998). Women’s choice to pursue self-employ-
ment: The role of financial and human capital of household members. Jour-
nal of Small Business Management, 36, 8–17.
Center for Women’s Business Research. (2003, August 25). Growth is a key
focus for all women entrepreneurs: Women making a difference. Los
Angeles Business Journal.
Center for Women’s Business Research. (2007, February 20). Firms owned by
women of color outpace all firms in growth in numbers: Yet revenues and employ-
ment are lower than average. Available online at www.cfwbr.org/press/
details.php?id¼147.
Chun, J., Griffin, C. E., Phillips, D. (1996). Women & minority entrepreneurs
[special report]. Entrepreneur, 24 (1).
Cleaver, J. (2004, June). On the money: Women entrepreneurs are experiencing
greater success finding financing for their business, but is it enough? Entre-
preneur, 32 (6), 44.
Coughlin, J. H. (2002). The rise of women entrepreneurs: People, processes, and global
trends. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue:
Towards building cumulative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30 (5), 585–594.
Federal Trade Commission. (March 1998). Facts for consumers: Equal credit oppor-
tunity. Available online at www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/
ecoa.shtm.
Guttner, T. (2000). Finally, credit where credit is due: After years of ignoring
women business owners, banks and other lenders are beckoning. Business
Week. Available online at www.businessweek.com/2000/00_26/
b3687149.htm.
Harvey, A. (2005). Becoming entrepreneurs: Intersection of race, class, and gen-
der at the Black beauty salon. Gender & Society, 19 (6), 789–808.
Hopkins, J. (2006, August 24). African-American women step up in business
world: More women of color take lead on path to entrepreneurship. USA
Today, p. B3.
Jome, L. M., Donahue, M. P., & Siegel, L. A. (2006). Working in the uncharted
technology frontier: Characteristics of women Web entrepreneurs. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 21 (1), 127–147.
Female leaders are rare, at least if you believe the history books. For
instance, in Axelrod’s (2003) encyclopedic biography of historical lead-
ers, women are greatly outnumbered by men. Furthermore, the few
women who are mentioned are well known—for example, Joan of Arc,
Theodora, and Queen Elizabeth I—whereas several of the men who are
mentioned are fairly obscure—for example, Bajan, leader of the Avars;
Samudragupta, the ‘‘Indian Napoleon’’; and Toussant Louverture, a
Haitian independence fighter. This historical gender-based imbalance
in leadership appears to still be the case today. Simply put, women are
underrepresented in leadership roles (Eagley & Johnston, 1990).
Why are women so underrepresented in leadership? Is it because
their leadership styles differ from those of the men in their respective
eras? In this chapter, we begin with a discussion of leadership styles
and why men and women might lead differently. We follow with an
examination of historical women leaders and their leadership styles
through the lens of leadership theory.
MODERN LEADERSHIP
Most of the recent literature on managerial leadership cites two pri-
mary types of leadership: transactional and transformational (Eagley &
Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Ridgeway, 2001; Walumba, Wu, & Ojode,
2004). A third type—laissez-faire leadership—also appears in some of
the leadership literature.
Transactional Leadership
First we must understand the traditional view of the leadership role.
Leadership roles, especially those in the workplace, have long been
held by men. Therefore, it is understandable that, when seeking histori-
cal knowledge of leadership, one will focus on the study of male lead-
ers, who tend to have had a transactional leadership style (Eagley &
Carli, 2004; Eagley & Johnston, 1990; Walumba et al., 2004).
Walumba and colleagues (2004) describe a traditional, or transac-
tional, leadership style as being focused on task structure, accomplish-
ment, and the exchanges that occur between a leader and his or her
followers. The relationships between leaders and followers are defined
as transactions in which the leader communicates the desired outcomes
to the subordinate(s) and uses a contingent-reward system to bring
about the desired behavior.
Transactional leadership can be divided into three subtypes:
contingent-rewards leadership, active management-by-exception lead-
ership, and passive management-by-exception leadership. Contingent-
rewards leaders emphasize the relationship between rewards and
effective performance. The active management-by-exception leader
monitors the subordinates to prevent any deviations from the desired
outcomes. Passive management-by-exception leadership is character-
ized by intervention when mistakes have been made by the subordi-
nates (Walumba et al., 2004).
A primary disadvantage of transactional leadership is the Skinnerian
contingency itself; employees will perform well only as long as they are
adequately compensated and recognized, and un-reinforced employee
behaviors will dissipate. This has the added negative effect of strongly
tying employee motivation to whatever the company or organization is
willing to offer as a reward. By this line of reasoning, leaders will have
great success as long as they have the resources to adequately compensate
their subordinates, and transactional leaders with fewer resources will be
less successful. This limitation in performance as a result of leadership
style has great implications for less resourceful or wealthy organizations.
However, it is the form of leadership that most people are familiar with,
and it is arguably the most comfortable, given its long tradition.
The social psychology of transactional leadership is centered on the
idea of transactions—that is, interactions that are bound by a social
contract between the leader and the subordinate in which the leader
defines the desired outcome and its rewards. This contract does not
lend itself to any negotiation between the leader and the subordinate,
nor does it encourage group cooperativeness. Instead, this leadership
style creates an autocratic environment in which the leader calls the
shots and the subordinates race for the rewards. An individual who is
competitive, self-confident, aggressive, dominant, and forceful has a
Gender-Role Expectations
According to Eagley and Wood (1991), gender differences in behavior
can be explained by gender-defined roles—the limitation of each gender
to those traits and behaviors that society labels masculine or feminine.
Societal expectations create, reinforce, and subtly change these roles over
time. Gender-role conditioning for males includes encouraging competi-
tiveness, assertion, dominance, independence, and aggression. Because
men have long held leadership roles in this society, it is unsurprising
that masculine, or male gender-role, characteristics have become associ-
ated with leadership. These role expectations pervade the workplace
and influence behavior to various degrees, which explains why men are
expected to be more directive, aggressive, and independent in the work-
place. Eagley and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) demonstrated that these
qualities were expressed by men more often than women, especially in
terms of a desire to manage competitively and assertively.
Transformational Leadership
The alternative to transactional leadership is transformational leader-
ship, which is characterized by a focus on individualized interactions,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and influencing sub-
ordinates positively (Walumba et al., 2004). Transformational leaders
encourage teamwork and attempt to change their subordinates’
motives, beliefs, and capabilities to raise performance beyond self-interest
or reward. Transformational leaders tend to focus on benefiting the
organization and are less concerned with individual power and recog-
nition. They are more interested in successful group dynamics. The key
distinction between transactional and transformational leadership is
focus: Transactional leadership focuses on the individual power of the
leader, whereas transformational leadership focuses on the success of
the group.
Gender-Role Expectations
Gender-role beliefs are both prescriptive and descriptive (Rudman &
Kilianski, 2000). They tell men and women how they should act in day-
to-day life (descriptive) and how they will act (according to role restric-
tions) in certain situations (prescriptive). Eagley and Wood (1991)
discuss several aspects of the stereotypical female gender role and
describe gender differences that exist in several areas of social interac-
tion, including social behavior, nonverbal communication, and groups.
According to these researchers, the female role is characterized by the
social roles that women have historically held—especially childrearing
and domestic duties. Normative expectations for women include being
friendly, expressing concern for others’ welfare, and being emotionally
expressive.
Joan of Arc
Leadership did not come to Joan of Arc through the conventional
paths that were available in her era—i.e., birth, education, or marriage.
Instead, she assumed a leadership position as her ‘‘divine right’’ by
claiming to hear the voices of angels. These angels told Joan of Arc what
was necessary for victory over the English during the Hundred Years’
War. By following these divine instructions and leading the French army
accordingly, she was a successful military leader. However, to gain her
many victories, she had to defy the male military leaders of the time
and assert herself. Through her defiance, perseverance, and belief in a
divine mandate, she inspired her followers to action—despite her gender-
incongruent behavior (Axelrod, 2003).
After she was captured by the English, however, the popular senti-
ment toward her changed. She was imprisoned, burned at the stake for
heresy—specifically, for insisting on wearing male clothing (Wirth,
2006)—and eventually canonized as a saint (Axelrod, 2003). Her claim
of direct communication with God, which was the purview only of
male clergy at the time, and her masculine clothing suggest that she
led and behaved in a ‘‘masculine’’ manner. Her issuance of military
orders is also distinctly transactional in nature; so too was the asser-
tiveness required to see that her orders were followed.
Theodora
Theodora was an actress in the 6th century, when actresses worked
as prostitutes or in vulgar forms of entertainment. She married the
Queen Elizabeth I
Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, was born in the
16th century into privilege and the potential for leadership. Despite this,
her ascendancy was difficult because she was renounced as illegitimate
because of her father’s indiscretions and divergence from Roman Cathol-
icism. After the death of her father, Elizabeth was accused of treason
and imprisoned by her half sister, Queen Mary I (daughter of Henry
VIII and Catherine of Aragon), who later died of cancer without having
declared an heir. By default, Elizabeth became queen of England
(Axelrod, 2003). Queen Elizabeth I’s subjects were especially wary when
she rose to power, due in part to her sister’s bloody reign. People of the
time believed that women were intellectually inferior to men and unable
to lead because of their feminine temperament. Men were rulers and
leaders, and that was believed to be the way of God (Axelrod, 2000).
Despite these obstacles to her ascendancy, Queen Elizabeth I led
England through a combination of leadership abilities and her feminin-
ity. This combination of roles, as a monarch and a woman, is exempli-
fied in a speech she gave to her army on the eve of an invasion by the
Spanish Armada (Axelrod, 2000):
I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart
and stomach of a king—and of a King of England, too! . . . [that] any
prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to
which, rather than dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up
arms—I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of
your virtues in the field.
though Elizabeth I feels she must first acknowledge her gender con-
straints on behavior and strength so that she can make such masculine
statements.
Throughout her reign, Queen Elizabeth I led with a similar mix of
feminine and masculine leadership ideals. For instance, Axelrod (2000)
describes a speech that Elizabeth made in front of an all-male univer-
sity in which she showed respect for her subordinates by speaking in
Latin, the academic language of her day. She also acknowledged the
academicians’ good works and inquired what she could do as queen to
support the university. These actions could be described as communal
in nature because she was concentrating on acknowledging and
rewarding teamwork. (Axelrod notes that successful leaders in the
business world should acknowledge the talents of their subordinates,
speak with them, and show support.)
Queen Elizabeth I also walked with the men of the armed forces
and spoke to them directly, asserting her leadership as a judge of the
men’s actions. She said that she would share the fate of the soldiers, be
it glory or death. These statements are distinctly agentic in that they
are assertive, demanding, and finite. (Axelrod notes that leaders today
need to ensure that their subordinates believe that their leader can be
both a leader and a comrade.)
Queen Elizabeth I also maintained her leadership power by carefully
cultivating an image of herself as a Virgin Queen, much like Mary, the
Blessed Virgin, in Catholicism. She perpetuated this image by never
marrying and never producing an heir to the throne. Elizabeth knew
that if she married a man, power would shift away from herself and
onto her husband or male heir. Through this virginal image Elizabeth
also united England’s Catholics and Protestants with her emphasis on
piety, which further helped preserve her power.
A particularly feminine aspect of Queen Elizabeth I’s leadership was
her continued reliance on others: the privy, her advisors, her friends,
and her family all contributed to her decisions. She believed that the
key to success was evolution, not revolution. Therefore, she appointed
new advisors to help the country make advancements, while retaining
old and trusted advisors to maintain a sense of history and prevent
revolution. Elizabeth encouraged her followers’ loyalty by showing loy-
alty to her country. She was also unafraid of criticizing the actions of
others, although she did so without attacking personal or private
faults. This tempered forwardness of reprimands is a distinct feature of
her blend of communal and agentic leadership qualities.
In summary, Queen Elizabeth I exhibited a more feminine, commu-
nal leadership style when interacting with her people in more private
settings. As a monarch, she led in a more masculine, autocratic style,
especially when the situation called for a strong hand. Perhaps it was
this curious but effective combination of feminine and masculine
men and for men to behave more autocratically than women. Eagley
and Johnston (1990) noted that even when female and male leaders sat-
isfy the same selection criteria (e.g., work history, experiences, educa-
tion), they might differ in personality and behavioral tendencies.
Specifically, they noted that women’s interpersonal social skills would
enable them to manage more democratically than men do.
Foels, Driskell, Mullen, and Salas (2000) suggest that democratic
leadership is more satisfying to group members than autocratic leader-
ship is. In particular, they report that democratic leadership elicited a
stronger positive affect in laboratory groups as group size increased.
Furthermore, a group’s gender distribution affected satisfaction with
leadership style: Predominantly male groups were more satisfied with
an autocratic leader, whereas predominantly female groups were more
satisfied with a democratic leader. However, the gender composition of
the group was a factor only in real-world groups; all of the artificial
groups reported higher satisfaction with democratic leadership.
Although Foels and colleagues (2000) found greater group satisfac-
tion with democratic leaders, they point out that these findings are lim-
ited in real-world applications and practicality. Businesses that are
changing to a democratic leadership style will probably not notice any
appreciable difference in productivity or worker satisfaction. These
findings support Eagley and Johnston’s (1990) assertion that gender
differences do exist in the workplace and influence leadership style,
but only to a small degree.
SUMMARY
We have not entirely answered the question of which leadership
style is better. In short, the answer, unfortunately, seems to be, ‘‘It
depends.’’ It depends on group size, setting, goals, gender distribution,
etc. There is no clear answer on the superiority of transformational
leadership or transactional leadership. So what can we conclude?
We may conclude that, there are distinctive styles of leadership,
each leadership style seems to be gender-specific, and both leadership
styles, transactional, and transformational, are effective. There is no
doubt that people lead in different ways; these differences are not only
individual in nature but are influenced by gender expectations. Histori-
cally, there are exceptions: Joan of Arc and Theodora both appear to
have been masculine in their behavior and leadership qualities,
whereas Queen Elizabeth I seems to have created an effective mix of
leadership styles.
However, as women have entered the workforce and have more fre-
quently assumed leadership positions, they have discovered that the
prescribed female gender role and transactional leadership are incon-
gruent. As a result, a new form of leadership has begun to take shape.
REFERENCES
Axelrod, A. (2000). Elizabeth I CEO: Strategic lessons from the leader who built an
empire. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.
Axelrod, A. (2003). Profiles in leadership. New York: Prentice Hall Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1953). Sharing leadership in small, decision-making groups. Jour-
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48 (2), 231–238.
Butterfield, D. A., & Powell, G. N. (1981). Effect of group performance, leader
gender, and rater gender on ratings of leader behavior. Organizational
Behavior & Human Performance, 28 (1), 129–141.
Day, D. R., & Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Leader behavior of male and female super-
visors: A comparative study. Personnel Psychology, 25 (2), 353–360.
Eagley, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2004). Women and men as leaders. In J. Antona-
kis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership
(pp. 279–301). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eagley, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of
women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 781–797.
Eagley, A. H., & Johnston, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 233–256.
Eagley, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining gender differences in social
behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 17 (3), 306–315.
Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The effects of democratic
leadership on group member satisfaction: An integration. Small Group
Research, 31 (6), 676–701.
Garland, L. (1999). Byzantine empresses: Women and power in Byzantium A.D.
527–1204. London: Routledge.
Lee, D. M., & Alvares, K. M. (1977). Effects of gender on descriptions and eval-
uations of supervisory behavior in a simulated industrial setting. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 62 (4), 405–410.
Rice, R. W., Instone, D., & Adams, J. (1984). Leader gender, leader success, and lead-
ership process: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (1), 12–31.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues,
57 (4), 637–655.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash
towards agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 743–762.
Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes towards
female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (11), 1315–1328.
Walumba, F. O., Wu, C., & Ojode, L. A. (2004). Gender and instructional
outcomes: The mediating role of leadership style. Journal of Management
Development, 23 (2), 124–140.
Wirth, R. (Ed.). (2006). Primary sources and context concerning Joan of Arc’s male
clothing. Historical Academy for Joan of Arc Studies. Available online.
Yoder, J. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 815–828.
Table 7-1.
Similarities and differences in motivating employees and setting
goals
the other roles. These managers serve as the primary point of contact
for providing financial products and services to business clients
within the assigned market area. Committed intensives are character-
ized by the high intensity that they bring to their work. They are
almost obsessive about personal productivity for themselves and
others, to the point that they might have difficulty understanding,
and even tolerating, individuals who are not willing to work as hard
as they do (Quinn, 1988).
The middle-level managers in the sample can be described as concep-
tual producers. These managers work well in developing and selling
new ideas. This is consistent with the fact that these managers have a
Table 7-2.
Similarities and differences in controlling work and tracking details
Table 7-3.
Similarities and differences in mentoring and facilitating interactions
FEMINIST THEORY
Although indications of feminist leadership approaches appeared in
early 19th-century social movements, what became known as feminist
theory actually emerged in the social turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s
(Rusaw, 2005). Feminism is composed of several themes, but one of the
most prominent is that gender differences in behavior, cognition, and
perception derive from a combination of nature and nurture, from biol-
ogy and life history. We see these differences demonstrated in person-
alities, occupational preferences, social role identities, family role
expectations, communication preferences, and approaches to interper-
sonal relationships. Feminism also promotes beliefs in caring and com-
passion for others in the form of social responsibility and social justice
Table 7-4.
Similarities and differences in managing change and persuasion
Table 7-5.
Transformational and transactional roles
Table 7-6.
Traits associated with CVF roles
it is also not inconceivable that the men in our sample, because of the
educated and diverse nature of its population, yielded to behaviors
that were compatible with feminist theory and were more transforma-
tional in managerial styles than we might have anticipated. As sug-
gested by Eagley et al. (2003): ‘‘Self-definitions of managers may thus
reflect an integration of their managerial role and gender role, and
through self-regulatory processes, these composite self-definitions influ-
ence behavior, thereby shading the discretionary aspects of managerial
behavior in gender-stereotypic directions’’ (p. 572).
Third, although unlikely, it is possible that the CVF roles do not cor-
respond as strongly with transformational managerial behaviors as we
might have anticipated. In fact, while Figure 7.1 shows a configuration
of the transformational/transactional roles split between upper and
lower parts, the women in our sample showed stronger bias toward
the left side versus the right side of the CVF configuration displaying
behaviors that are closely associated with the socio-technical systems
(left side) more so than performance systems (right side). Operationali-
zation of these roles might not reflect the same constructs as previous
research on transformational leadership.
A fourth possibility is that differences in perceptions of conscien-
tiousness and monitoring would lead women to score themselves
higher than men even when there is actually little practical difference
in their behaviors (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001).
Finally, we must consider the possibility that differences in the na-
ture of the sample might account for the previous failures to find a
strong monitoring role for women. Ultimately, we are left with the con-
clusion that, despite the fact that the other three quadrants have been
represented as showing distinctions between women and men in the
CVF in previous studies, women have not shown internal-process
quadrant strengths in previous research. This is surprising, because
traits can influence CVF role behaviors and studies have shown gender
differences in conscientiousness (Cavallo & Brienza, 2006a; Gelissen &
de Graaf, 2006), analytical cognitive styles (Hays, Allinson, &
Armstrong, 2004), and detail orientation (Irby et al., 2002).
According to Costa and colleagues (2001), personality variations
between the categories, compared to variations between the genders,
are actually fairly small. Because variations between the genders are
small, and reports of gender differences in personality rarely lead to
actual differences in managerial effectiveness (Xie & Whyte, 1997), per-
haps we should search elsewhere for our unexpected results.
Proven, successful managers are tested and honed by experience
and education. The managerial process may be viewed as evolutionary;
that is, upper levels of management are populated with higher propor-
tions of well-balanced, emotionally mature managers. Strong trait and
behavioral differences, gender-related or not, are filtered out along the
managers had been working much longer and harder. Increased organ-
izational efficiency came about only, in part, as a result of changes in
work processes (reflected in part by shifting roles within the competing
values framework). The larger source of productivity gain was most
likely the result of the vastly increased allocation of managerial activity
from personal (non–value-maximizing) activities to activities enhancing
organizational effectiveness (Belasen et al., 1996).
A later study of the impact of hypereffectivity led the researchers to
conclude that this process is unsustainable, requiring top executives
and human resources directors to pay close attention to the work con-
text that breeds conditions of hypereffectivity and to develop possible
remedies (Belasen & Frank, 2004). Reminiscent of the Hawthorne
Effects and the dynamics that lead female employees to exceed expect-
ations, it is not too uncommon to conclude that the women in our sam-
ple, wanting to demonstrate their superior skills over their male
counterparts, resorted to the overemphasis of the CVF internal-process
quadrant and its accompanying roles, in particular the monitor.
CONCLUSION
Today’s women are emmanently qualified for executive responsibil-
ities. Taking advantage of their strengths in interpersonal and social
skills, for example, they excel in leveraging rewards power through the
granting of implicit rewards, such as personal expressions of apprecia-
tion, and information power through the explicit reward distribution of
information. However, access to higher managerial levels remains elu-
sive, and women frequently find themselves shifting into a state of
hypereffectivity to advance their careers. Human resource recruiters
and trainers should take this risky tendency into account in their selec-
tion processes and in their design of executive development programs.
Diversity is not achieved by pressuring women to overachieve in those
CVF roles outside their core strengths. A more suitable approach
would be to help women maximize all of their skills while simultane-
ously helping them learn to recognize the risks of hypereffectivity. One
approach, for example, might be to help women identify potentially
demanding projects and recommend that they set time limits on overly
demanding job assignments to prevent possible burnout. Another
approach might be to help them learn to overcome their weaker areas
by leveraging their strengths or by bringing in others with compensat-
ing strengths.
By focusing on continued improvement while tempering the drive
for success with an astute allocation of innate strengths and energy,
women can reach their full potential at the executive level.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. (2005). Leadership journeys: The courage to enrich the world. In L.
Coughlin, E. Wingard, & K. Hollihan (Eds.), Enlightened power: How women
are transforming the path to leadership (pp. 3–13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). An investigation of female and male constructs of
leadership and empowerment. Women in Management Review, 10 (2) 3–8.
Barker, A. M., & Young, C. E. (1994, October). Transformational leadership:
The feminist connection in postmodern organizations. Holistic Nurse Practi-
tioner, 9 (1), 16–25.
Barton, T. (2006). Feminist leadership: Building nurturing academic commun-
ities. Advancing Women in Leadership On-Line Journal, 222. Available online
at http://awnettech.advancingwomen.com/awl/fall2006/barton.htm.
Belasen, A. T. (1998). Paradoxes and leadership roles: Assessing and develop-
ing managerial competencies. Management Development Forum, 1 (2), 73–98.
Belasen, A. T. (2000). Leading the learning organization: Communication and compe-
tencies for managing change. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Belasen, A. T., Benke, M., DiPadova, L. N., & Fortunato, M. V. (1996). Downsiz-
ing and the hyper-effective manager: The shifting importance of manage-
rial roles during organizational transformations. Human Resource
Management Journal, 35 (1), 87–118.
Belasen, A. T., & Frank, N. M. (2004). The perceptions of human resource
managers of the shifting importance of managerial roles in downsizing
organizations. International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, 4 (2), 144–163.
Belasen, A. T., & Frank, N. M. (2005, August). Roles managers play: A deeper look
at the competing values framework. Paper presented at the Academy of Man-
agement, HI.
Belasen, A. T., & Frank, N. M. (2008). Competing values leadership: Quadrant
roles and personality traits. Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal, 29 (2) 127–143.
Belasen, A. T. & Rufer, R. (2007). Building a competency-based MBA from the
ground up: Curriculum design and program delivery. Proceedings of the
Academy of Management (pp. 1–6), Philadelphia.
Buenger, V., Daft, R., Conlon, E., & Austin, J. (1996). Competing values in
organizations: Contextual influences and structural consequences. Organi-
zation Science, 7 (5), 557–576.
Burke, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Gender differences in leadership styles and
management skills. Women in Management Review, 16 (5/6), 244–256.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational
culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Cavallo, K., & Brienza, D. (2006a). Emotional competence and leadership excellence
at Johnson & Johnson: Emotional intelligence and leadership study. Available
online at www.corpconsultinggroup.com.
Cavallo, K., & Brienza, D. (2006b). PsyD corporate consulting group. Available
online at www.corpconsultinggroup.com.
Chin, J. L., (2004). Feminist leadership: Feminist visions and diverse voices.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 1–8.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in
personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (2), 322–331.
Craik, K. H., Ware, A. P., Kamp, J., & O’Reilly, C. L. (2002, June). Explorations
of construct validity in a combined managerial and personality assessment
programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75
(2), 171.
Dastmalchian, A., Lee, S., & Ng, I. (2000). The interplay between organizational
and national cultures: A comparison of organizational practices in Canada
and South Korea using the competing values framework. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 11 (2), 388–412.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance:
Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership.
Organizational Science, 6 (5), 524–540.
Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organiza-
tional development: A competing values approach. In R. W. Woodman &
W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5,
1–21.
Eagley, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of
women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797.
Eagley, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transfor-
mational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis
comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 569–591.
Eagley, A., & Johnston, B. (1990). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Fine, M. G. (2007). Women, collaboration, and social change: An ethics-based
model of leadership. In J. L. Chin, B. L. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J. Sanchez-Hucles
(Eds.), Women and leadership: Visions and diverse voices. Boston: Blackwell.
Fine, M. G., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). Walking the high wire: Leadership
theorizing, daily acts, and tensions. In P. M. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking
organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives
(pp. 128–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garman, A. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on
the competing values framework. Personnel Psychology, 59 (3), 755–757.
Gelissen, J., & de Graaf, P. M. (2006). Social Science Research, 35 (3), 702.
Mueller, G., & Plug, E. (2006). Estimating the effect of personality on male and
female earnings. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 60 (1), 3–22.
Gilligan, C. (1981). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s develop-
ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hart, S. L. & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executive play: CEOs’ behavioral
complexity and firm performance. Human Relations, 46 (5), 114–122.
Hays, J., Allinson, C. W., & Armstrong, S. (2004). Intuition, women managers,
and gendered stereotypes. Personnel Psychology, 33 (4), 33.
Helgeson, S. (1990). Women’s way of leading. New York: Doubleday.
Hooijberg, R., Bullis, C. R., & Hunt, J. G. (1999), Behavioral complexity and
the development of military leadership for the twenty-first century. In
J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership:
Senykina, A., & Linz, S. J. (2007). Gender differences in personality and earn-
ings: Evidence from Russia. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28 (3), 387–410.
Toren, N., Konrad, A. M., Yoshioka, I., Kashlak, R. (1997). A cross-national
cross-gender study of managerial task preferences and evaluation of work
characteristics. Women in Management Review, 12 (6), 234.
Trinidad, C., & Normore, A. H. (2005). Leadership and gender: A dangerous
liaison? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26 (7/8), 574–590.
Vilkanis, T. (2000). The gender factor in management: How significant others
perceive effectiveness. Women in Management Review, 15 (5/6), 261.
Vilkinas, T., & Cartan, G. (2001). The behavioral control room for managers:
The integrator role. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22 (4),
175–185.
Weyer, B. (2007). Twenty years later: Explaining the persistence of the glass
ceiling for women leaders. Women in Management Review, 22 (6), 482.
Won, H. (2006). Links between personalities and leadership perceptions in
problem-solving groups. Social Science Journal, 43 (4), 659–672.
Xie, J., & Whyte, G. (1997). Gender differences among managers and non-
managers: An analysis of assessment data. Canadian Journal of Administra-
tive Sciences, 14 (3), 340.
2005; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002; Woods & Buchanan, 2007) associ-
ated with the sexual harassment experiences of women of color.
Minority women experience sexual racism (Essed, 1992) and racial-
ized sexual harassment (Buchanan, 2005; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002;
Texiera, 2002) as unique forms of harassment that combine race and
gender simultaneously. Although much of the harassment literature has
described sexual and racial harassment as distinct, actual experiences of
harassment are often fused in such a way that the two forms become
indistinguishable (Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002; Collins, 2000; Essed,
1992). Studies of Black female firefighters and police officers, Filipina
women, and Latina working women offer evidence for the presence of
these behaviors (Cortina et al., 2002; Welsh, Carr, MacQuarrie, & Hunt-
ley, 2006; Texiera, 2002; Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996, 1997). These examples
call upon sexualized stereotypes of minority women (e.g., being called
‘‘mamacita’’ or a ‘‘geisha’’) and physical features thought to vary by race
(e.g., comments about a Black woman’s ‘‘large Black behind’’).
Although the negative work and psychological consequences of sex-
ual harassment have been well studied, the consequences of racialized
sexual harassment are less well known. Nevertheless, the evidence
asserts that it is present in a variety of institutions and can merge to
target other marginalized populations, such as lesbians (Bowleg,
Huang, Brooks, Black, & Burkholder, 2003; DeFour, David, Diaz, &
Thompkins, 2003).
CONCLUSION
Sexual harassment research has sought to define harassment, explain
why it occurs, and explore the associated risk factors and outcomes.
Lower job satisfaction, work productivity, and supervisor satisfaction,
as well as increased absenteeism, turnover, depression, posttraumatic
stress symptoms, and health problems have all been associated with
sexual harassment, making it costly to the women who are targeted as
well as to the organizations in which they work. Women who have
been harassed use a variety of methods to cope with their experiences
and continue to adapt their responses; this indicates an active intent to
end their harassment, even when their responses appear to be passive,
such as ignoring the behavior.
Although guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment in
organizations have been outlined by the courts and by researchers, the
need for studies on the efficacy of these prevention programs remains.
In addition, greater attention to the needs of marginalized workers,
such as women of color and lesbians, who often experience double or
triple jeopardy, is long overdue. Future research must begin to concen-
trate on these issues to provide proven solutions and a secure working
environment for all working women.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. H. (1997). Sexual harassment and Black women: A historical perspec-
tive. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treat-
ment (pp. 213–224). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Beal, F. M. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.),
The Black woman: An anthology (pp. 90–100). New York: Signet.
Bell, M. P., Cycyota, C., & Quick, J. C. (2002). Affirmative defense: The preven-
tion of sexual harassment. In D. L. Nelson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender,
work stress, and health: Current research issues (pp. 191–210). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 425–437.
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for
minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2), 426–436.
Bond, M. A., Punnett, L., Pyle, J. L., Cazeca, D., & Cooperman, M. (2004). Gen-
dered work conditions, health, and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 9, 28–45.
Bowleg, L., Huang, J., Brooks, K., Black, A., & Burkholder, G. (2003). Triple
jeopardy and beyond: Multiple minority stress and resilience among Black
lesbians. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 87–108.
Buchanan, N. T. (2005). The nexus of race and gender domination: The racial-
ized sexual harassment of African American women. In P. Morgan & J.
Gruber (Eds.), In the company of men: Rediscovering the links between sexual
harassment and male domination (pp. 294–320). Boston: Northeastern Univer-
sity Press.
Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (in press). The effects of racial and sexual
harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American
women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.
Buchanan, N. T., & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the
lives of African American women. Women & Therapy, 25, 107–124.
Buchanan, N. T., Settles, I. H., & Langhout, R. D. (in press). Black women’s
coping styles, psychological well-being, and work-related outcomes follow-
ing sexual harassment. Black Women, Gender and Families.
Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998).
Civil Rights Act, P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e 2(a) (1964).
Cleveland, J. N., & Kerst, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of
power: An under-articulated relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42
(1), 46–67.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the poli-
tics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Cortina, L. M. (2004). Hispanic perspectives on sexual harassment and social
support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (5), 570–584.
Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (2002). Contextualizing Latina
experiences of sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 295–311.
Cortina, L. M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harass-
ment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 22, 419–441.
Flynn, K. (1991). Preventive medicine for sexual harassment. Personnel, 68, 17.
Glomb, T. M., Munson, L. J., Hulin, C. L., Bergman, M. E., & Drasgow, F.
(1999). Structural equation models of sexual harassment: Longitudinal
explorations and cross-sectional generalizations. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 84, 14–28.
Gutek, B. A. (1997). Sexual harassment policy initiatives. In W. O’Donohue
(Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 175–184). Need-
ham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual
harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55–74.
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993a)
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993b).
Hogler, R. L., Frame, J. H., & Thornton, G. (2002). Workplace sexual harass-
ment law: An empirical analysis of organizational justice and legal policy.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 14, 234–251.
Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence
rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-
analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56 (3),
607–631.
Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., Ekeberg, S. E., & Dubois, C.L.Z. (1997). Determi-
nants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 687–729.
Langhout, R. D., Bergman, M. E., Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F.,
& Williams, J. H. (2005). Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational
and personal determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 35 (5), 975–1007.
Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual
workplace aggression and victims’ overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 155–169.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
Levy, A., & Paludi, M. (2002). Workplace sexual harassment (2nd ed.). Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Magley, V. J. (2002). Coping with sexual harassment: Reconceptualizing wom-
en’s resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 930–946.
Magley, V. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Buchanan, N. T. (2000, April). Assessing coping
with sexual harassment over time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Martin, S. E. (1994). ‘‘Outsider within’’ the station house: The impact of race
and gender on Black women police. Social Problems, 41, 383–400.
Mecca, S. J., & Rubin, L. J. (1999). Definitional research on African American stu-
dents and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 813–817.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2003). A concomitant examination of the relations
of perceived racist and sexist events to psychological distress for African
American women. Counseling Psychologist, 31, 451–469.
Morgan, P., & Gruber, J. (2005). In the company of men: Rediscovering the links
between sexual harassment and male domination. Boston: Northeastern Univer-
sity Press.
them to find out how to avoid being sexually harassed. For this and
other reasons, I am heading a new group, ‘‘Voice of the Child Associa-
tion’’—for the prevention of sexual harassment among young children.
We are working with the media to raise awareness and promote a law
relating to SH in children under the age of 13 years.
Last year, I started teaching a seminar on SH in young children at
the Kibbutz College. The students in their fourth year of training as
kindergarten teachers and teachers carry out research on this phenom-
enon in first- and second-grade kindergartens. I find it rewarding to
teach the sensitive methodology I developed in my thesis, based on the
signs appearing in a young child prior to harassing behavior of his or
her friend and the expression of SH. The students are given a full set
of tools for asking about SH and examining and interpreting their
observations relating to sexual violence and for equipping children to
avoid SH. At the end of the academic year, students submit seminar
papers about their work, and, in this way, are ‘‘ambassadors’’ for this
important cause.
It is amazing to see the students realizing that they have been
‘‘blind’’ toward certain behaviors. This underlined for me the impor-
tance of the relation is between theory and field work for understand-
ing the motivation behind such behavior, identifying the different
stages and learning to use the various available tools. Thus, our work
is highly significant and is only the beginning of a long process.
During the last 4 years, it has become clear to me that I that my task is
to make people aware of this new form of behavior. In my research,
observing children’s games in kindergarten and the first grade of school, I
found that 20% of the children had experienced SH. Although it has
always been there, most educators and parents did not refer to it as SH,
but rather accepted it as a curiosity among young children, which is
undesirable and should be prevented—boys will be boys, etc.
The next stage was to provide SH prevention tools for kindergarten
and school teachers based on strategies developed by Dr. Strauss. Two
prevention programs were devised, focusing on gender and equality
between the sexes and referring to violence, in general, and SH, in par-
ticular: (1) for young children from kindergarten to second grade
(between 4 and 8 years old) and; (2) for fifth- and sixth-grade pupils
(between 11 and 13 years old).
These programs are now being taught in various places in the coun-
try. We are currently seeking funding in Israel and abroad to extend
this program to special-needs, Arab, Druze, Ethiopian, and Russian
populations in the appropriate mother tongues.
This shift in my career has led to two main directions: Specialization
in this field, including teaching, lecturing and research, and taking the
initiative to increase awareness of this phenomenon both in Israel and
worldwide.
It has now been more than half a century since the U.S. Supreme Court
wrote its eloquent paean to public education (Brown v. Board of Educa-
tion, 1954):
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local
governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expendi-
tures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of
education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of
our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It
is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instru-
ment in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later
professional training, and in helping him adjust normally to his environ-
ment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be
expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.
Given the lofty personal and societal expectations for education rep-
resented in this passage, few would argue that career preparation is
the first purpose for the nation to establish and maintain public
schools. However, many, and indeed the Court itself, would assert that
the ability to earn a respectable living is essential to the well-being of
both the individual and the larger community. An association between
schooling and career opportunities is justified both theoretically and
experimentally. If, as some have said, education is more a journey than
a destination, at this historical moment it appears that many students
graders believe that they will pursue some form of postsecondary edu-
cation. Furthermore, 70% of high school graduates actually go to col-
lege within 2 years of graduating. However, low-income and minority
students apply to different institutions and complete their degrees at
much lower rates than their White peers do. Nationally, 20% of the col-
lege-going cohort, the wealthiest and best prepared high school appli-
cants, attend the most selective 4-year colleges (Adelman, 2001),
whereas the remaining 80%, including the majority of low-income high
school graduates, enroll primarily in broad-access, 2- and 4-year insti-
tutions (Fry, 2004).
Getting into a college of any kind is no guarantee of completing
one’s education, however. More than 40% of students who have earned
at least 10 college credits do not stay on to complete a 2- or 4-year
degree. About 25% of the freshmen at 4-year colleges do not return for
year 2, and, at community colleges that percentage doubles (Kirst,
2004). The rates at which students persist in college long enough to
obtain at least a bachelor’s degree vary greatly by race and ethnicity.
The highest success rate, 49%, is for Asian and Asian-American stu-
dents (Education Trust, 2001). In 2000, only 10% of Latinos and 18% of
African Americans nationally had earned a college degree, whereas the
figure for European Americans was 34% (U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, 2001).
After several decades of increasing numbers, women now constitute
the majority of enrollees at both undergraduate and graduate institu-
tions, and they obtain approximately 60% of the degrees at the associ-
ate, bachelor’s, and master’s levels. Although the proportion of White
females and males attending college is fairly equal, Latino and African-
American males are underrepresented at every level (U.S. Department
of Education, 1999).
Thus, while the pace of change suggests that today’s students must
be educated for jobs that do not even exist yet and that those jobs will
probably be in a constant state of evolution, it is inescapably clear that
all students need to graduate after being schooled in the content, dispo-
sitions, and skills that will enable them to have full and satisfying lives
and careers.
Career Academies
In contrast to emphasizing the liberal arts as the best preparation for
tomorrow’s workers, there is a growing nationwide trend to increase
the number and types of career and technical courses and extend them
as requirements for all students who attend what were once traditional
comprehensive high schools. From this perspective, increasing career-
related content in the secondary schools is motivating for many stu-
dents because it allows them to have more choices and to specialize in
subjects they associate with meaningful future employment.
Thus, thousands of schools have established ‘‘career academies,’’
which permit students to major in culinary arts, forensics, medical-
technical training, and engineering, among other subjects. In fact, Flor-
ida, which has approximately 600 career academies, recently started to
have all ninth graders pick from more than 400 possible majors and
take at least four career-oriented classes in high school. To provide for
an exploration of various careers, the students will be allowed to
change their majors.
In Florida, California, South Carolina, and other states, reconceptual-
izing career and technical education for all students forces an evalua-
tion of the traditional comprehensive high school curriculum and
graduation requirements. The expectation of states’ school policy plan-
ners is that this structured career and vocational requirement will
sharpen all students’ awareness of the interdependence of educational
preparation and employment opportunities.
In addition to encouraging individual students to explore careers
and life-enriching experiences, several other important civic, organiza-
tional, and educational benefits may arise from changing high school
course offerings and graduation requirements in ways the career aca-
demies are now modeling. For example, a school-career focus could
lead to the following three improvements: closer communication
between secondary-level educators and leaders in industry, the profes-
sions, and postsecondary schools to verify the appropriateness or use-
fulness of the high schools’ career-oriented courses; higher graduation
rates as job-related courses give potential dropouts the motivation to
stay in school; and increased impetus for school administrators and
teachers to design challenging courses and sequences of study to
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
Adelman, C. (2001). Putting on the glitz. Connection: New England’s Journal of
Higher Education, 53 (3), 24–30.
American Federation of Labor. (1997). Trends in educational equity for girls and
women. Washington, DC: Author.
Beane, D. B. (1985). Mathematics and science: Critical filters for the future of minor-
ity students. Washington, DC: American University.
Betts, J., Rueben, J., & Dannenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes?
The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San
Francisco: Public Policy Institute.
Brown, S. D., & Krane, N.E.R. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of
dust: Old assumptions and new observations about career counseling. In
S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students. Harvard Educational Review,
56, 9–36.
Editorial Projects in Education (EPE). (2007). Diplomas count 2007: Ready for
what? Preparing students for college, careers, and life after high School. Be-
thesda, MD: Education Week.
Education Trust. (1999, Fall). Ticket to nowhere. Washington, DC: Author.
Education Trust. (2001, Winter). Youth at the crossroads. Washington, DC:
Author.
Fry, R. (2004). Latino youth finishing college: The role of selective pathways. Wash-
ington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Gandara, P. (2002). A study of high school Puente: What we have learned about
preparing Latino youth for post-secondary education. Educational Policy,
16, 474–495.
Gandara, P. (2004). Building bridges to college. Educational Leadership, 62, 56–60.
Gates Foundation. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts.
Available online at www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/ed/The Silent
Epidemic3-06Final.pdf.
Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Herr, E. L. (1996). Perspectives on ecological context, social policy, and career
guidance. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 322–340.
Hill, O. W., Pettus, W. C., & Hedin, B. A. (1990). Three studies of factors affect-
ing the attitudes of Blacks and females toward the pursuit of science and
science-related careers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27,
289–314.
Hubbard, L. (1999). College aspirations among low-income African-American
high school students: Gendered strategies for success. Journal of Negro Edu-
cation, 68, 213–226.
Hubbard, L. (2005). The role of gender in academic achievement. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 605–623.
Kirst, M. W. (2004). The high school/college disconnect. Educational Leadership,
51–55.
Kush, K., & Cochran, L. (1993). Enhancing a sense of agency through career
planning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 434–439.
Malcolm, S. M. (1990). Reclaiming our past. Journal of Negro Education, 59 (3),
246–259.
Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school
success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Science Foundation. (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabil-
ities in science and engineering: 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
Nelson, J. (2007). AVIDly seeking success. Educational Leadership, 64, 72–74.
Rumberger, R., & Rodriguez, G. (2002). Chicano dropouts: An update of
research and policy issues. In R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and
success (pp. 114–146). New York: Palmer Press.
Sadker, D. (2002). An educator’s primer on the gender war. Phi Delta Kappan,
84, 235–240, 244.
Schmoker, M. (2007). Reading, writing, and thinking for all. Educational Leader-
ship, 64, 63–66.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
(1999). The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
(2000). Trends in educational equity for girls and women. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center For Educational Statistics.
(2001). The condition of education, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center For Educational Statistics.
(2003). The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1999). Employed persons
by detailed occupation, gender, race, and Hispanic origin. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
I know I have no problem in the area of ‘‘too sexy,’’ ‘‘too busty,’’ or dis-
tractingly beautiful, but it is clear that for any woman, of any age or condi-
tion, being female is something to compensate for.
—Barbara Ehrenreich (2005, p. 105).
It is important that a woman find her own voice and that she discover ways
of projecting it into the universe. A woman must learn how to express her
views clearly and firmly without being afraid that this will offend, fatally
injure, or drive her intimates away.
—Phyllis Chesler (2001, p. 479)
Despite the occupational gains women have made in the past 50 years,
women have still not achieved true equity within the workplace for a
variety of reasons, one of which is the disconnect between the ways in
which people view women and the ways in which women view them-
selves. Socially prescribed gender roles can lead to unrealistic expecta-
tions for both sexes, which often results in the essentializing of the
sexes. As Chesler’s words above advise, women must see past these
limitations and strive for success, which often involves taking risks, to
achieve workplace equity. In this chapter I will examine these and
other factors that prohibit equity in the workplace for women, and I
will propose potential solutions.
Psychologists and biologists agree that biological sex is separate and
distinct from gender, which is a complex system of socially prescribed
traits that sometimes, but not always, correspond to biological sex. This
correspondence is more a matter of culture than of biology. However,
Even in the best of circumstances, women have tended to lack the sense
of competence that comes from being able and entitled to act, to do, in
the larger public world of strangers, and to have one’s projects and
actions valued in the public currency. Their condition of powerlessness
has been closely bound up in their role as caretaker, so that the latter is
distorted by the former. (p. 26)
have babies; it is assumed that women cannot work long hours because
of household responsibilities; women are thought to lack judgment in
making difficult decisions or in a high-stress situation. The prevailing
feminine stereotypes promote the idea that all women are nurturing,
soft, caring, emotional, and communal. Midgley and Abrams (1974)
indicate that societal expectations and stereotypes have had negative
effects on women’s motivation. Fear of success in women was first
attributed to the anxiety caused in women by competition with males.
Women must fight these stereotypes to compete and succeed.
In general, men advance further, more quickly, and with higher com-
pensation than women do (Phillips & Imhoff, 1997). Men are socialized
to take on leadership roles more often than women are. Women are
socialized to care about relationships, which is not a trait that is neces-
sarily valued in the realm of leadership and management. Thus, women
are thought to be incapable of leadership roles, or at least not as capable
as men are. Society still prescribes roles that are deemed ‘‘natural’’ for
women and for men. What becomes associated with women is then
devalued (Kerka, 1993). Because women and men are still socialized dif-
ferently, including the tendency to value different things, women’s
workplace experiences continue to be very different from men’s.
Gender stereotyping can lead to gender discrimination. No matter
what the cause, gender discrimination is still a major problem for
women in the workplace and in academe (Carr, Szalacha, Barnett, Cas-
well, & Inui, 2003). To be successful, women have to overcome more
obstacles in a variety of areas simply by virtue of their gender. This
fact is often compounded by racial, socioeconomic, and heterosexist
biases as well. Despite the fact that ‘‘gender, like culture, is a human
production that depends on everyone constantly ‘doing gender’’’
(Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow, 2001, p. 3), people do not usu-
ally view gender as a construction. Many view gender as a ‘‘naturally’’
occurring system in which behavioral roles are determined on the basis
of biology and are thus immutable.
Gender socialization theory posits that gender differences in career
attributes stem from stereotypes, which are handed down through
socialization. Women and men unknowingly accept these traditional
norms, values, expectations, and roles as ‘‘normal,’’ natural, and ‘‘their
own’’ (Konrad, Yang, Goldberg, & Sullivan, 2005). Conformity to these
norms is enforced by the culture; those who do not adhere to these
behaviors are punished by isolation, lack of promotion, social exclu-
sion, workplace exclusion, and ridicule. Because masculine and femi-
nine stereotypes are still enforced for men and women, men often
gravitate toward careers that relate to or represent the masculine role.
The same is true for women and the feminine role.
Kasen, Chen, Sneed, Crawford, and Cohen (2006) argue that wom-
en’s personality characteristics stem from societal expectations and are
realms, and then a vicious cycle is created. Ferguson (1984) states the
following:
A woman’s success in areas traditionally reserved for men can give rise
to social penalties, causing them to be disliked and negatively viewed.
These results also are suggestive [of] the nature of the negative character-
izations likely to result. When women violate gender prescriptions by
being successful in areas that are not traditionally part of their domain,
they seem to be cast in a light that not only is negative but also is anti-
thetical to the traditional stereotype of women and conceptions of how
they should be. (p. 417)
stereotypical roles can discourage girls and young women from pursu-
ing nontraditional fields (Creamer & Laughlin, 2005). According to
Pulkkinen and colleagues (1999), constructive activity in one’s child-
hood correlates with positive management of working life as an adult.
Socially passive and anxiety-ridden behavior as a child are indicative
of problems later—stressful situations as an adult are likely to be dealt
with internally rather than confronted externally. Pulkkinen and col-
leagues note, ‘‘Previous research has shown that in stressful life condi-
tions women tend to react by internalizing rather than externalizing
their problems’’ (p. 54).
It is more difficult for women, especially those who are traditionally
oriented, to be successful in male-dominated fields because they have
to alter their personalities to be accepted as competent. There is social
pressure on women to change within traditionally male fields (Kirch-
meyer, 2002). Peplau (1976) presents a traditional view of women’s ca-
reer development by arguing that women who find themselves in
competition with men fear losing their femininity, and women’s
achievement may be impacted because women strive to maintain, at
the very least, an illusion of male superiority.
Peplau (1976) found that traditional women perform better in
noncompetitive or team settings, whereas nontraditional women excel
in competitive situations. Androgynous oriented women experience
less fear of success than traditionally feminine women do (Kearney,
1982).
Whiston and Bouwkamp (2003) found that career-oriented women
possess more intrinsic needs, such as independence and achievement.
According to Twenge (1997), communal traits have remained higher in
women than in men, whereas agentic traits have increased in women
over time. Twenge found that the gap between women and men is
decreasing in terms of feelings of personal agency.
Twenge (2001) found that assertiveness (an agentic trait) in women
has been increasing in the past 20 years but that it varies with status
and roles. Women in nontraditional fields, such as engineering, do not
show gender differences in agentic and communality. Both women and
men reported possessing agentic, or dominant, behavior when in posi-
tions of supervision; however, it was mainly women who reported
communal, or submissive, behaviors when in positions of workplace
subordination (Abele, 2003).
Personal Expectations
Personal expectations with regard to one’s career have much to do
with how far one will advance. ‘‘The self-concept contains a number of
‘possible selves,’ which are defined as conceptions of what we ideally
will become in the future, what we expect we will become, and what
we fear we will become’’ (Chalk, Meara, Day, & Davis, 2005). Accord-
ing to Creamer and Laughlin (2005), women are more likely than men
to seek advice from others about career decisions and are more influ-
enced by others.
Bizzari (1998) found that some women think that their values are
not universal values; they also found that women put their personal
needs on hold to first serve the needs of the family. In other words,
serving the needs of others, or putting others first, whether at work or
at home, is often common among women. Selflessness serves as an ob-
stacle to workplace success for women. Bizzari found that responsibil-
ity for women was often synonymous with being ‘‘good,’’ providing
for the family in a variety of ways, and that selfishness was defined as
meeting one’s own needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs might not be
reflective of self-actualization for women, because self-fulfillment for
women is directly tied to the nurturing of others—not for biological
reasons, but as learned behavior.
Expectations of Others
Self-actualized, secure, and independent women are not nurtured
and cultivated by our society. In fact, people ask what is wrong if a
woman has chosen not to have children. Although women might be
perceived as possessing the necessary (read: male) characteristics for
an occupation, these characteristics are not considered to be what
women ‘‘should’’ actually ‘‘be like.’’ There are consequences for
women who do not fit their prescribed role, such as social ostracism
and receiving negative personal feedback. Women who behave in tra-
ditionally male ways are less well received than are men who deviate
from traditional norms (Heilman et al., 2004).
Competent women and women leaders can be viewed by others as
cold, bitter, quarrelsome, and selfish when they simply possess the same
personality characteristics as their male counterparts (Heilman et al., 2004).
Sometimes they don’t even possess the characteristics but are merely
believed to possess them. According to attribution theory, the personality
characteristics and accomplishments of women and men are explained dif-
ferently. For example, women’s accomplishments are often attributed to
luck or other external factors, and their advancement is attributed to af-
firmative action and not to personal ability (as men’s accomplishments
are) (Kirchmeyer, 1998; Lyness & Thompson, 1997). Moreover, women’s
performance on traditionally male-oriented tasks is often attributed to luck
or to effort, whereas men’s performance is attributed to skill (Greenhaus
& Parasuraman, 1993). The reason for the former is that such success vio-
lates people’s gender-role expectations; thus, to avoid cognitive disso-
nance, the observers attribute negative attributes to women, such that
women are not responsible for their own successes—they just ‘‘got lucky.’’
Appearance
Finally, another form of oppression that women must face within
the workplace is the issue of appearance. According to Thompson and
Keith (2001), the ‘‘pursuit and preoccupation with beauty are central
features of female gender-role socialization’’ (p. 354). Women who are
deemed unattractive are more vulnerable to bias within the workplace.
Author Grant Bowman (cited in Ehrenreich, 2005) points out,
‘‘Marcia Clark . . . changed her hairstyle, dress and personal manner,
became softer, more feminine, warmer and more open—in short, less
like the aggressive trial lawyer she is and more like a stereotypical
woman’’ (p. 108). To be accepted in the work world, women often have
to spend more time and money on their appearance than men do. If
women do not pay as much attention to their appearance as is deemed
socially necessary, or if their appearance is seen as unfeminine, they
will be judged harshly for it.
Appearance and its judgment by others seem to affect all women in
some way, but currently there is a lack of formal research in these
areas.
competence and expertise. At this stage, women have gained more per-
sonal experience and have achieved some degree of personal power.
They become empowered through their associations with women in
similar positions, and they form networks geared to organizational
change. These women view themselves as organizational change agents
and seek to change the culture, either overtly or covertly.
Bierma (1999) also found a lack of feminist identification in the
women she studied. Women believed that adopting the label feminist
could be damaging to them in their career advancement. Nevertheless,
they did adhere to many feminist beliefs and used feminist language.
However, they refused to attribute their unfair treatment in the organi-
zation to discrimination or harassment, despite their knowledge, trans-
formation, and progression through the stages. This set of beliefs
contributes to an organizational culture in which gender discrimination
and even gender harassment are unacknowledged and thus tolerated.
This research highlights the importance of consciousness-raising for
women in traditional male organizations or corporate cultures. It also
addresses the importance of helping others who are excluded from
informal networks and of the importance of mentoring other women
(and other members of token groups) so that they can also achieve suc-
cess and advancement within the organization. This research also im-
plicitly raises the question of whether a feminist identification is
beneficial to women in the workplace, especially women who are grap-
pling with discriminatory environments.
Vinnicombe and Harris (2000) found that many organizations are
run as closed and informal systems in which opportunities for promo-
tion and advancement are discussed and agreed upon through infor-
mal networks, many of which exclude women. These informal
networks create and perpetuate the organizational culture. Career or
job commitment, for example, is defined through these informal net-
works; because these consist primarily of men, women’s definitions of
commitment, which allow for conflicts (e.g., work-family balance,
child care), are absent from these networks and thus from the boss’s
perceptions and evaluations of women workers. In other words,
women are often evaluated unfairly because of this omission and
inconsistency.
According to Dryburgh’s (1999) examination of Canadian workplace
culture in engineering, it is more difficult for women than men in this
field to achieve success because women have to make more of an
adjustment to the organizational culture in terms of the perceptions of
others and solidarity with others within the profession. She states the
following:
Women have to work harder than men, and they face obstacles not there
for men of similar ability. Women . . . have to adjust [not only] to the
Each profession has its own culture with which successful employ-
ees (members) must become acclimated. It is easier for men, with their
informal informational networks, to successfully acclimate themselves.
Women often have to compensate simply for being women.
Women in nontraditional fields have to adapt not only to a work-
place culture but also to the masculinity of that culture. This can pro-
duce anxiety. Group identification leads to empowerment (Chronister
& McWhirter, 2006), but when women do not possess identification
with a group—with the majority culture or with other women—
workplace satisfaction is greatly reduced, and anxiety increases.
In sum, women often face tremendous obstacles to gain acceptance
in an organizational culture, especially in nontraditional fields. They
must deal with negative expectations, gender-role stereotypes, and
doing more than is expected to be seen as competent. They must try to
find a mentor or a way into the informal networks that are often closed
to them so that they can learn to navigate the hostile waters of organi-
zational culture. Women must also face the hostility that results when
they advance into nontraditional realms. Heilman and colleagues
(2004) note the following:
Terms such as bitch, ice queen, iron maiden, and dragon lady are invoked to
describe women who have successfully climbed the organizational
ladder. . . . These characterizations provide some insight into why, despite
their success, high-powered women often tend not to advance to the very
top levels of organizations. (p. 426)
We found that women are more likely to hold top management jobs in
establishments with higher turnover and lower average management sal-
aries. To some extent, unfortunately, women appear to be securing top
jobs in less desirable establishments, possibly as men seek top jobs in
more stable, higher paying organizations. (p. 493)
beneath them; and, because there are so few opportunities for women,
they consider other women as competitors and fail to help them.
Anderson (2005) cites the view that ‘‘the occupational behavior
and status of women and men is determined not so much by the
characteristics they bring with them into the workplace, but by the
structures they encounter there’’—that is, being relegated to low-sta-
tus jobs (p. 63). Therefore, women have fewer opportunities, resour-
ces, and access to power and resources than men do. However,
individual mentors can assist in career advancement for women and
minorities.
Women in general experience both internal and external barriers to
their workplace success (Whiston & Bouwkamp, 2003). Internal barriers
to gainful employment and advancement for women include role con-
flict, low self-efficacy, negative perceptions of women by others, low
expectations, limiting gender-role identities, etc. External barriers
include sexual harassment, lack of mentors, socioeconomic status, dis-
crimination in education and occupation, and gender-role stereotyping
(Noonan, Gallor, & Hensler-McGinnis, 2004).
Men’s careers often follow a linear path (Sterrett, 1999). Women’s
careers often progress in a nonlinear fashion, involving gaps that are
related primarily to issues with child care (Pulkkinen et al., 1999).
Women are more likely than men to experience an employment gap
(Reitman & Schneer, 2005). Sterrett (1999) indicates that women tend to
put less emphasis on pay and more on career satisfaction. Furthermore,
if women are not oriented toward competition, they can be put off by
the corporate structure. For example, women are often unwilling to
make the personal sacrifices, such as less time spent with family, that
are demanded by organizations. Despite these findings, more research
is necessary on how women experience their careers.
Another internal barrier that some women face is guilt. Women who
want to advance in the workplace often feel bad about leaving their
homes and families. Successful women have indicated that they had to
put their careers first at certain times. Men do this quite frequently in
order to advance, but women are often judged negatively for it
whereas men are not. Mentors are important for women in dealing
with this and other issues (Crampton & Mishra, 1999).
Women also report that they are provided with fewer opportunities
for advancement and that women with children are directed into
slower employment tracks (Shinew & Arnold, 1998). Women often
compare themselves to other women and not to men within the work-
place, so some might not analyze their experiences as resulting from
discrimination or differential treatment (Sterrett, 1999). Women in the
workplace report experiencing more discrimination and gender-based
obstacles to advancement (such as sexual harassment), as well as lower
career aspirations, than men do; women are also more likely to report
(i.e., they have dual roles), so they are unable to take on additional
work that would assist them with future promotions. Feminists have
discussed the concept of the double workload for decades. This term was
coined to describe the many women who have entered the workplace
and who come home from one full-time job to another full-time job:
housework and child rearing. This concept corresponds to the lack of
child care and housework that is taken on by husbands and boy-
friends.
The division of labor in the home between women and men is still
unequal. Women spend twice as much time as men do on household
tasks and on child care, despite working outside the home the same
amount of time (Williams, Manvell, & Bornstein, 2006). This tradition
is reinforced by the media. Television commercials and print advertise-
ments typically portray only women using cooking and cleaning
products—unless, of course, the role carries a certain amount of pres-
tige, such as a chef. Williams and colleagues state, ‘‘The leveling off of
women’s employment and men’s household contributions are likely
related. Because most men do not carry an equal share of household
work, women’s ability to accept promotions or to remain in good jobs
is constrained’’ (p. 21).
Women with children often take jobs with fewer responsibilities and
less compensation or decline promotions in order to be in positions
that are more flexible so that they have more time for the family.
Unmarried women in the workforce experience better health than their
married counterparts; married women experience better health if their
husbands contribute to household labor. Heavy workplace demands
and a low level of personal control contribute to health risks (Long,
1995).
The benefits of motherhood (e.g., caring and nurturing) have been
emphasized over the costs of motherhood, or what women have to
give up to be considered ‘‘good mothers.’’ Role conflict and role over-
load are often used to dissuade women from entering the workforce
or returning to it after giving birth to or while rearing children. The
complications of paid employment, marriage, child rearing, and home-
making can cause social-role dissonance, psychological distress, physi-
cal stress, and strains on one’s health and well-being (Baruch, Biener,
& Barnett, 1987; Cinamon, 2006). However, with more support from
the employment realm (e.g., on-site child care) and the family (e.g.,
support from the husband in terms of shared responsibilities), women
can be more successful in the workplace and less torn by their many
roles.
According to a study on work, marriage, and life satisfaction (Per-
rone, Webb, & Blalock, 2005), there are differences in how women and
men spend their time, but no differences in what they value or how
women and men wish they could spend their time. This study suggests
that if women and men structured their lives in terms of what they val-
ued, there would be no gender differences in role participation in the
major areas of life: work, family, and leisure.
College women pursuing nontraditional careers reported desiring
fewer children, held more feminist attitudes, and planned to share
household responsibilities (Cinamon, 2006). Having a spouse that is
supportive is related to less role conflict and heightened well-being
(Kasen et al., 2006). Long (1995) found that, in terms of stress,
employed women are better off than women who do not work outside
the home. Lack of career progression for women can be a source of
stress. Long suggests that women are subject to the same workplace
stressors as men are; however, women are also subject to additional
stressors, such as sexual harassment, gender discrimination, gender-
role stereotyping, and role conflict.
Evaluation Procedures
Effective performance is often attributed to ability when the em-
ployee being observed is a member of the in-group rather than the out-
group; in the latter case, success is often attributed to luck. This does
not just apply to gender; it also applies to race, class, and sexual orien-
tation. White males are more likely to have their successes attributed to
their own ability than are White women, Black women, and Black men
(Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993). Black women face increased dis-
crimination because of the double bind they experience when facing
both racial and gender discrimination. People who possess token status
are more likely to be noticed in an organization and thus have their
work more closely supervised (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004).
Employees who were thought to perform well because of ability were
also judged more worthy of promotions than were those whose suc-
cesses were attributed to luck or effort (Greenhaus & Parasuraman,
1993).
Women experience discriminatory evaluation procedures, have their
competence denied, and have their performance devalued as a result
of their gender (Heilman et al., 2004). These unfair processes perpetu-
ate negative expectations of women, which result from the inconsis-
tency in how women are viewed and the characteristics that are
necessary to perform a particular job. Even when women are successful
in traditionally male occupations, they are still often judged unfairly.
Settles and colleagues (2006) examined the causes of levels of attri-
tion in women in science-related fields. These high levels of attrition
seem to suggest an atmosphere that is problematic for women in gen-
eral. Women of color were found to have less influence in their depart-
ments than White women had. Women in the field of science
experience fewer opportunities for leadership and influence, slower
Backlash
The term opt-out revolution was coined in 2003 by journalist Lisa Bel-
kin to convey the phenomenon of women who choose to leave the paid
workforce to raise children full-time. This phenomenon created a
media frenzy and was picked up by a variety of papers, including The
New York Times. It is more accurate to say, however, that women are
leaving the workforce because of the following: inflexible workplaces,
discrimination and stereotypes, lack of support for working families, or
workforce-workplace mismatch (Williams, Manvell, & Bornstein, 2006).
These opt-out stories started a firestorm of antifeminist rhetoric in the
media, where several false assumptions were made on the basis of quasi-
scientific data—for instance, that the pay gap was a result of women’s
decisions and not as a result of discrimination. To make matters worse,
many readers accepted these stories without question because they con-
firmed the traditional stereotypes of women, many of which the readers
already held. Williams and colleagues (2006) stated the following:
and when they choose to return to work after raising children. This
further contributes to the backlash against women; it provides a false
sense of encouragement to women by implying that they will not suf-
fer any negative consequences from opting out—such as being unable
to regain their positions.
The opt-out articles also focus on a return to traditionalism or tradi-
tional values. However, this is truly not what is occurring. There has been
a change in what women expect from men, and women’s roles have
changed as well. Women are not extricating themselves from working al-
together. Rather, they are removing themselves from the ‘‘all-or-nothing’’
workplace. This is quite different from what the opt-out articles are sug-
gesting. Williams and colleagues (2006) state the following:
The opt-out articles also imply that child care is inherently women’s
work. Williams and colleagues (2006) state, ‘‘More often reporters take
masculine privilege for granted and treat it as uncontroversial’’ (p. 34).
One article in The New York Times (cited in Williams et al.) presented a
more realistic view of this opt-out issue by noting that the majority of
stay-at-home mothers stated that even though their husbands had
expressed a willingness to help with the children and the house, ‘‘the
men rarely lifted a finger unless they were specifically asked and given
detailed instructions about the task at hand’’ (p. 34).
The United States is only one of four countries worldwide that does
not provide for paid parental leave. The other countries are Lesotho,
Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland (Williams et al., 2006). Opt-out sto-
ries ignore the discrimination against women that is still present in
today’s workforce and that causes many women to leave their jobs and
perhaps the working world in general (if they can afford to, that is).
Finally, the opt-out stories penalize younger women because they
provide them with an inaccurate picture of how things really are; young
women might not be aware of the wage loss they will incur from taking
a few years off. These stories minimize the economic penalties of leaving
the workforce and make it seem easy to come back without penalty.
ANECDOTAL FINDINGS
I sent out an e-mail questionnaire to gather anecdotal data from
female educators and university professors, women in law, and women
in the corporate world for current perspectives on women’s workplace
experiences, focusing specifically on personality characteristics. (The
questionnaire can be found at the end of this chapter.)
I’ve been approached for gender, flirted with and sexually harassed. I’ve
also been ignored and discounted, and my ideas and work [have] been
passed off as someone else’s. I’ve been called ‘‘honey,’’ ‘‘dear,’’
‘‘sweetie,’’ and ‘‘girl.’’ After I became an attorney, my male boss used to
come in my office at 6 P.M. and say, ‘‘Take a letter to _________; I need to
get this done today and my secretary is gone.’’ And I would actually
type his letter for him!
She described some of the challenges she faced in the workplace as
follows:
One, men mistake my being feminine or ‘‘nice’’ for being weak; two, I’ve
had to turn down male coworkers and/or clients who asked me out on
dates in a way that didn’t make them mad; three, some men don’t think
I’m as smart as they are because I tend to be quieter and less assertive;
four, men assume that because you’re a woman of childbearing years
(and you might have children or be planning to have children), you’re
not as dedicated to the job as they are; five, I believe (but I have no
proof) that I was paid less than my male counterparts; six, juggling child
care and work was very difficult when I was a single mom and my son
was young; seven, some men (many times, older men) feel more comfort-
able dealing with men than with women at work because, I think, they’re
used to thinking of women in a sexual or maternal context and not as
equals in the workplace; eight, many men don’t value what they consider
‘‘female’’ traits, such as good communication skills or the desire and abil-
ity to form consensus instead of fighting, as much as they value ‘‘male’’
traits such as aggression and competition.
About female leadership, the judge had this to say:
I do think women leaders face more scrutiny and are judged more harshly
than their male counterparts. Women who are leaders, bosses, managers,
etc., are expected to be beautiful as well as extremely good at their job, or
they will be criticized, discounted, or laughed at. I’m not sure whether peo-
ple want women [who are] leaders to be feminine or masculine. As I said
before, if you’re too feminine, they think you’re weak; but if you’re too mas-
culine, you’re a dyke or a bitch. It can be a no-win situation for the female. I
think women need to combat their natural tendency to be quiet—they need
to speak up as much as the men when they have something of value to say.
Finally, the judge ended her commentary with some suggestions:
I think women are routinely given less responsibility than men. Some-
times, women who do not fulfill others’ expectations can be ostracized,
or excluded, from real power. I think, above all else, that female leaders
need to appear strong, or men will think they are weak. No hesitation is
allowed for females! And they should never, never cry in front of any-
one! They should have a superior command of the English language—
good public speaking is essential.
I believe that if men dominated the field of education, had as much respon-
sibility, and were required to have as much education, the overall wages
earned by educators would be higher. My school had a female principal for
5 years; teachers, in general, thought it was appropriate to comment nega-
tively about how she dressed. They criticized her because they thought she
spent too much money on her clothing. She always looked professional, in
my opinion. This principal was generally able to accomplish what she
wanted to accomplish, but sometimes had to fight hard in order to do so.
When she left rather abruptly, a male principal was hired to be the in-
terim [principal]. I was unable to attend the staff meeting that was held
on his first day, but I arrived as it was letting out. The teachers were
actually swooning as they walked down the hall after the meeting, each
carrying a rose and a doughnut, indicating that they felt like someone
was there who was really ready to listen to them. I never heard one
word about his choice of clothing, and in my opinion, he was rather inef-
fective as a leader, but the staff was never happier. He never bothered to
learn anyone’s name, just called everyone ‘‘dear,’’ ‘‘sweetie,’’ or ‘‘dar-
ling.’’ The staff at this school is almost entirely female. The custodian is
male and would not do what the female principal asked of him. [Yet] he
was at the male principal’s beck and call.
I see the administrators here from 7 A.M. until 10 P.M., working during the
school day and supervising extracurricular activities in the evening. I do
not want that type of work schedule. I want to do my job and be home
with my family by 4 P.M. I think that many of my female colleagues feel
similarly, which is one reason there are so few female administrators at
the high school level. I know one woman who is interested in becoming
an administrator. She is at a point in her life where her children are
grown, and she is ready for another challenge. Maybe I’ll feel the same
way in 18 years, but for now, I’m happy doing what I’m doing.
I have noticed that women often have strength in the workplace that
men in management sometimes lack. Women seem to be able to work
through the personality conflicts that so often occur in the workplace.
Women can forgive. Women can apologize. Women can get two people
to recognize that they need to ‘‘get over’’ their past differences.
The assistant superintendent also recognizes the need for informal net-
works for women: ‘‘Finally, the only obstacle that still occurs is the
informal, after-hours networking. Golf, fishing, card games, etc., still
tend to be male-oriented, and so you are often excluded.’’
Another response I received was from an aspiring leader. She had
many interesting things to say about people’s perceptions of women in
the workplace:
I think that we still walk a fine line between being assertive and being a
‘‘bitch.’’ It doesn’t seem that there is room for the more emotional, feel-
ing side of women in the workplace. Many times it still feels like I need
to be more like a man in order to succeed. I think women face greater
scrutiny and are judged more harshly, particularly by men from the
‘‘old-school’’ way of thinking. As I stated above, women walk a fine line
between being assertive and being a ‘‘bitch,’’ and men who don’t like
what they are hearing from their female leaders are likely to try to deni-
grate the woman by calling her names. It is a cop-out on their part, but it
happens. I think that some women self-sabotage or fail to take the risks
necessary to advance. Female bosses are highly visible, so their self-
sabotage or lack of risk taking are more visible to others and can tend to
lead others to conclude that all female bosses will act in a particular way.
An assertive woman in particular needs to be certain to temper it some-
what so as to not appear aggressive, even though it is okay for men to be
aggressive. Society still isn’t ready for that in women.
With regard to how women treat other women, this woman stated the
following:
In sum, these findings indicate that women’s role conflicts often pre-
vent them from entering leadership or management positions, that men-
toring and networking are very important for women’s advancement,
that women are still excluded from men’s information networks, and
that there are still different expectations for women and men in terms of
personality characteristics, which affects women’s advancement and the
evaluation of women’s performance in positions of leadership.
We must challenge the simplistic notion that man is the enemy, woman
the victim. We all have the capacity to act in ways that oppress,
Women too can behave in sexist ways. Women harm other women
all the time and can block their advancement. Women, like men, are
influenced by and have internalized patriarchal norms. Chesler (2001)
states that ‘‘women are so used to having their boundaries routinely
violated at home by men and by other women that they often repeat
such invasive behavior in business and professional relationships’’
(p. 364). Women within a patriarchy have been kept apart by the
divide-and-conquer mentality. Women have been socialized to compete
with one another for the attentions of men or for the token position
instead of coming together to work for a common cause. Feminism has
brought many women together, but even feminists can hold sexist
attitudes.
Several recent studies on feminist identification suggest that women
are hesitant to self-identify as feminists primarily because of the term’s
perceived negative connotation. Some researchers indicate that young
women tend to express feminist ideas without labeling themselves as
feminists (Henderson-King & Stewart, 1994; Morgan, 1995; Percy &
Kremer, 1995; Renzetti, 1987; Rupp, 1988; Stacey, 1987; Weis, 1990).
Burn, Aboud, and Moyles (2000) found that even when women and
men agree with the goals of feminism, they avoid self-identification
with the term for fear of being associated with a stigmatized label.
The cultural messages that women receive from patriarchy are the
devaluation of all things female. Instead of identifying with what is
perceived as negative (i.e., female), women often choose to male-iden-
tify, to strive to be ‘‘one of the boys,’’ or an honorary man. This gives
women a false sense of power, because they can never truly be what
they seek to imitate or ‘‘put on.’’ This male identification, or ‘‘perform-
ance,’’ is further revealed in their need to qualify the term feminist if
they do in fact choose to use it as a self-identifier.
Aronson (2003) found that feminist identification can be classified on
a continuum: ‘‘I’m a feminist,’’ ‘‘I’m a feminist, but . . .’’, I’m not a femi-
nist, but . . . ’’, ‘‘I’m a fence-sitter,’’ and ‘‘I’ve never thought about femi-
nism.’’ This qualification often stems from this need to male-identify:
‘‘I’m a feminist, but I don’t hate men,’’ ‘‘I agree with many feminist
causes, but I’m not a prude,’’ or ‘‘I would be a feminist, but I’m not that
uptight.’’ According to Aronson, most women are fence-sitters. Some
researchers believe that this ambivalence toward feminism can be culti-
vated into active support for the feminist movement (Martin, 2006).
If raising a feminist consciousness can, at the very least, promote
individuals to see societal or systemic inequities as stemming from
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Ferguson (1984) argues the following:
FUTURE RESEARCH
More research is necessary on how a woman’s appearance affects
workplace success and advancement. This is an area that seems to
affect all women in some way, but little research exists in this area.
More research is also necessary on the question of what personality
characteristics have to do with gender and with workplace success and
advancement for women. The intersections of class, race, and gender
should be examined for how they continue to affect women’s work-
place experiences. An examination of race and gender and how these
impact performance attributions and performance assessment would
be useful in gauging how workplace discrimination affects employees.
Socialization and gender-role stereotypes, sexual harassment, and
sexist environments affect women, men, and the organization in gen-
eral; these are areas that require further study. How organizations train
employees to avoid these problems and how they deal with offenders
also requires further study. More research in general is necessary on
how women experience their careers and deal with workplace stress.
Additional research is required in the area of feminist identification.
For instance, does overt feminist identification inhibit advancement for
women in general? Do women believe this to be so? How can individ-
ual and collective feminist identification assist women in forming the
networking relationships that are so crucial to success in an organiza-
tion? Does the extent to which women challenge the status quo affect
workplace success and advancement? Finally, is the failure to develop
a feminist consciousness relevant to women’s success? Is keeping a
feminist consciousness secret important to women’s continued work-
place success and advancement?
Attempting to find the answers to these and other related questions
would contribute tremendously to the study of feminism in the work-
place and to the continued importance of feminist ideals for women
today.
CONCLUSIONS
Ferguson (1984) wrote the following:
Real social change comes about when people think and live differently.
Feminist discourse and feminist practice offer the linguistic and
structural space on which it is possible to think, live, work, and love dif-
ferently, in opposition to the discursive and institutional practices of bu-
reaucratic capitalism. At least it is a start. (p. 212)
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What experiences or challenges have you (or women you know) had
in the workplace specific to your gender?
2. What are some obstacles women still face in the workplace?
3. In your experience, are the leadership styles of women with whom
you are acquainted inherently different from those of men?
4. Do female leaders face greater scrutiny than male leaders do, in your
experience? Why or why not? Are female bosses, supervisors, and
leaders judged more harshly than their male counterparts? Why?
What can be done to combat these harsh judgments?
REFERENCES
Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic feminine-communal
traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality, 85 (4), 768–
776.
Anderson, D. R. (2005). The importance of mentoring programs to women’s ca-
reer advancement in biotechnology. Journal of Career Development, 32 (1),
60–73.
Aronson, P. (2003). Feminists or ‘‘postfeminists’’? Young women’s attitudes to-
ward feminism and gender relations. Gender & Society, 17 (6), 903–922.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Baruch, G. K., Biener, L., & Barnett, R. C. (1987). Women and gender in
research on work and family stress. American Psychologist, 42 (2), 130–136.
Baucom, D. H. (1983). Gender role identity and the decision to regain control
among women: A learned helplessness investigation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 44 (2), 334–343.
Baucom, D. H., & Danker-Brown P. (1984). Gender role identity and gender-
stereotyped tasks in the development of learned helplessness in women.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (2), 422–430.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Wom-
en’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Ba-
sic Books.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (2006). Career self-efficacy theory: Back to the future.
Journal of Career Assessment, 14 (1), 3–11.
Bierma, L. L. (1999). A model of executive women’s learning and development.
Adult Education Quarterly, 49 (2), 107–121.
Bizzari, J. C. (1998). An intergenerational study of three gifted women:
Obstacles and challenges confronting women of high potential. Roeper
Review, 21 (2), 110–116.
Boatwright, K. J., & Egidio, R. K. (2003). Psychological predictors of college
women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of College Student Development, 44
(5), 653–669.
Brown, M. T., Eisenberg, A. I., & Sawilowsky, S. S. (1997). Traditionality and
the discriminating effect of expectations of occupational success and occu-
pational values for women within math-oriented fields. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 50, 418–431.
Brown, S. G., & Barbosa, G. (2001). Nothing is going to stop me now: Obstacles
perceived by low-income women as they become self-sufficient. Public
Health Nursing, 18 (5), 364–372.
Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender
social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42 (11/12), 1081–1089.
Carr, P. L., Szalacha, L., Barnett, R., Caswell, C., & Inui, T. (2003). A ‘‘ton of
feathers’’: Gender discrimination in academic medical careers and how to
manage it. Journal of Women’s Health, 12 (10), 1009–1018.
Catalyst. (2000). Census of women corporate officers and top earners. New York:
Author.
Chalk, L. M., Meara, N. M., Day, J. D., & Davis, K. L. (2005). Occupational pos-
sible selves: Fears and aspirations of college women. Journal of Career
Assessment, 13 (2), 188–203.
Chesler, P. (2001). Woman’s inhumanity to woman. New York: Thunder’s Mouth
Press.
Chronister, K. M. (2006). Social class, race, and ethnicity: Career interventions
for women domestic violence survivors. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 37 (3/4), 175–182.
Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). An experimental examination of
two career interventions of battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 53 (2), 151–164.
Cinamon, R. G. (2006, March). Anticipated work-family conflict: Effects of gen-
der, self-efficacy, and family background. Career Development Quarterly, 54,
202–215.
Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass
ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80 (2), 655–682.
Crampton, S. M., & Mishra, J. M. (1999). Women in management. Public Person-
nel Management, 28 (1), 87–106.
Creamer, E. G., & Laughlin, A. (2005). Self-authorship and women’s career de-
cision making. Journal of College Student Development, 46 (1), 13–27.
Dreher, G. F. (2003). Breaking the glass ceiling: The effects of gender ratios and
work-life programs on female leadership at the top. Human Relations, 56
(5), 541–562.
Dryburgh, H. (1999). Work hard, play hard: Women in professionalization in
engineering—adapting to the culture. Gender and Society, 13 (5), 664–682.
Duncan, P. K., & Skarstad, K. (1995, October). How women administrators are per-
ceived by others: A case study examining the relationship between leadership tem-
perament, use of power, and success. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evalu-
ation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (1), 3–22.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribu-
tion of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46 (4), 735–754.
Ehrenreich, B. (2005). Bait and switch: The (futile) pursuit of the American dream.
New York: Metropolitan Books.
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Tem-
ple University Press.
Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gati, I., Givon, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1995). Gender differences in career deci-
sion making: The content and structure of preferences. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42 (2), 204–216.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s develop-
ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gonzalez-Figueroa, E., & Young, A. M. (2005). Ethnic identity and mentoring
among Latinas in professional roles. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 11 (3), 213–226.
Goodman, J. S., Fields, D. L., & Blum, T. C. (2003). Cracks in the glass ceiling:
In what kinds of organizations do women make it to the top? Group and
Organization Management, 28 (4), 475–501.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1993). Job performance attributions and
career advancement prospects: An examination of gender and race effects.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 273–297.
Guay, F., Senecal, C., Gauthier, L., & Fernet, C. (2003). Predicting career indeci-
sion: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 50 (2), 165–177.
Harlan, S. L., & Berheide, C. W. (1994). Barriers to work place advancement experi-
enced by women in law-paying occupations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties
for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3), 416–427.
Henderson-King, D. H., & Stewart, A. J. (1994). Women or feminists? Assessing
women’s group consciousness. Sex Roles, 31 (9–10), 505–516.
Hensel, N. (1991). Realizing gender equality in higher education: The need to inte-
grate work-family issues. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 340 273)
Hite, L. M., & McDonald K. S. (2003). Career aspirations of non-managerial women:
Adjustment and adaptation. Journal of Career Development, 29 (4), 221–235.
Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge MA:
South End Press.
Hutri, M., & Lindeman, M. (2002). The role of stress and negative emotions in
an occupational crisis. Journal of Career Development, 29 (1), 19–36.
Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed gen-
der ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82,
965–990.
Kasen, S., Chen, H., Sneed, J., Crawford, T., & Cohen, P. (2006). Social role and
birth cohort influences on gender-linked personality traits in women: A 20-
year longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91
(5), 944–958.
Kearney, M. (1982, April). Relationship between gender-role orientation and fear of
success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological
Association, Baltimore, MD.
Keim, J., Strauser, D. R., & Ketz, K. (2002, March). Examining the differences in
career thoughts of women in three low socioeconomic status groups. Jour-
nal of Employment Counseling, 39, 31–39.
Kerka, S. (1991). Adults in career transition. Columbus, OH. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 338 896)
Kerka, S. (1993). Women, human development, and learning. Columbus, OH. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 379)
Kirchmeyer, C. (1998). Determinants of managerial career success: Evidence
and explanation of male/female differences. Journal of Management, 24 (6),
673–692.
Kirchmeyer, C. (2002). Change and stability in managers’ gender roles. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 929–939.
Konrad, A. M., Yang, Y., Goldberg, C., & Sullivan, S. E. (2005). Preferences for
job attributes associated with work and family: A longitudinal study of ca-
reer outcomes. Sex Roles, 53 (5/6), 303–315.
Lindley, L. D. (2005). Perceived barriers to career development in the context
of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 13 (3), 271–
287.
Lockwood, P. (2006). ‘‘Someone like me can be successful’’: Do college students
need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 36–46.
Long, B. C. (1995). Women and work-place stress. Greensboro, NC: (ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED 401 496)
Lopez, F. G., & Ann-Yi, S. (2006). Predictors of career indecision in three
racial/ethnic groups of college women. Journal of Career Development, 33
(1), 29–46.
Lueptow, L. B., Garovich-Szabo, L., & Lueptow, M. B. (2001). Social change
and the persistence of gender typing: 1974–1997. Social Forces, 80 (1), 1–36.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A compari-
son of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82 (3), 359–375.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do
female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 85 (1), 86–101.
Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid:
On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 47 (6), 1399–1412.
Marler, J. H., & Moen, P. (2005). Alternative employment arrangements: A gen-
der perspective. Sex Roles, 52 (5/6), 337–349.
and developing field that will evolve as the business world of today
and tomorrow grows. My extensive background in all areas of business
strengthens my understanding of how a corporation as a whole suc-
ceeds. It is for this reason that I believe I can benefit any human
resources department or team.
To all the women out there—young and old, educated and not, pro-
fessionals and students—I want to say the following: To truly rise into
the next era of business, we must stick together for what is right, not
only for the people we work with and the company we work for, but
for each other.
is the author of the textbook Gender: Stereotypes and Roles. A licensed psy-
chologist, she also has published the results of many of her studies of gen-
der issues in course evaluations and of women and their bodies. She has
been a member of the executive committee of the Society for the Psychol-
ogy of Women since 2000.
the difficult and confusing laws regarding sexual harassment. Her origi-
nal and proven methods communicate the logic behind the laws and illus-
trate how to deal with sexual harassment as it happens. Her book, The
Sexual Harassment Handbook (2007), is a practical, street-smart guide for
working men and women.
Ms. Howard received her law degree from the University of Virginia
Law School and her undergraduate degree from Reed College. She is a
former law professor at Ohio State University, member of the White
House staff, college legal counsel, and senior attorney for the City of New
York. She serves as a trustee of Reed College and a director of the non-
profit group A More Perfect Union, Inc., and she leads transformational
programs for Landmark Education. Ms. Howard practices law in New
York City.
joining the firm, Ms. Wildgrube worked for a general practice firm that
provided a broad foundation for her law practice, which now concen-
trates on estate planning and administration, corporate and business law,
and real estate. Ms. Wildgrube holds a BA in English from Rutgers Col-
lege and a JD from the State University of New York at Buffalo School of
Law.
Volume 2
Obstacles and the
Identity Juggle
Edited by
MICHELE A. PALUDI
Praeger Perspectives
Women’s Psychology
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction xi
Chapter 1: Explaining Too Few Women in STEM Careers:
A Psychosocial Perspective
Bianca L. Bernstein and Nancy Felipe Russo 1
Chapter 2: Women as Leaders: From the Lab to the Real World
Florence L. Denmark, Erika M. Baron, Maria D. Klara,
Janet Sigal, Margaret Gibbs, Dorothy Wnuk 35
Chapter 3: My Life as a Woman Psychologist: In My Own Voice
Marilyn P. Safir 57
Chapter 4: Workplace Incivility, Sexual Harassment, and Racial
Micro-Aggression: The Interface of Three Literatures
Eros R. DeSouza 65
Chapter 5: Sexual Harassment and Male Dominance: Toward an
Ecological Approach
Phoebe Morgan and James Gruber 85
Chapter 6: Challenges for Women of Color
Darlene C. DeFour 109
Chapter 7: On Being a Woman Chiropractor: In My Own Voice
Patricia Campbell 121
Chapter 8: Relationships with Men
Donna Castan~eda and Breena E. Coates 125
Chapter 9: What I See Is What Matters: In My Own Voice
Sharon Butler 149
‘‘Hillary Clinton needs to wear a dress or skirt now and then. Her
always making public appearances in pants gives a sense she is trying to
‘fit in’ with the boys, which is never going to be the case.’’
‘‘Hillary is cute. Those are her qualifications for prez.’’
‘‘It’ll be nice to have a woman president but you know white America
won’t let her.’’
‘‘Women, above all, should reject hillary. Missus clinton is the biggest
misogynist of all.’’
‘‘hillary clinton running must be a joke! A woman for president! Ha!
Now that[’]s a joke.’’
She [Hillary Clinton] and I are from the same generation. We both went
to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other
choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I’m more joy-
ful than she is.
I have frequently used the following riddle when students and train-
ees indicate that they believe that they themselves do not hold gender-
role stereotypes about occupations:
One afternoon, a man and his son go for a drive through the countryside.
After an hour or so they get into a terrible car crash. The father dies
instantly. The son is taken by a helicopter to the nearest hospital, where
a prominent surgeon is called to help save the boy’s life. Immediately on
entering the operating room and looking at the boy, the surgeon
exclaims, ‘‘I can’t possibly operate on this boy . . . he’s my son.’’ How can
this be?
therapists, dental hygienists, and teacher’s aides are women (U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, 2003). Betz (in press) reported that women remain under-
represented in technical and scientific fields as well as in managerial
positions in education, government, business, and the military.
In a recent study conducted by Catalyst (2007), gender-role stereo-
typing was linked to women’s participation as leaders in business.
According to this report, ‘‘Gender stereotyping, one of the key barriers
to women’s advancement in corporate leadership, leaves women with
limited, conflicting and often unfavorable options no matter how they
choose to lead.’’
Catalyst found that women constitute more than 50% of manage-
ment and professional occupations but are only 15.6% of Fortune 500
corporate officers and 14.6% of Fortune 500 board directors. Ilene Lang,
president of Catalyst, comments on this as follows:
Women earn less than 20% of the bachelor’s degrees in fields such
as engineering and physics and less than 10% of the graduate degrees
in engineering (Betz, 2007). Women represent only about 14% of engi-
neers, 30% of computer systems analysts, and 25% of computer pro-
grammers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2003, 2005). Women account for
8% of physicists and astronomers, 7% of air traffic controllers, 5% of
truck drivers, 4% of pilots, 5% of firefighters, and 2% of carpenters and
electricians (Betz, 2007).
Equally important, women are paid less for full-time employment
than men are; women make only 77% as much as men do when both
are employed full-time (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). This income
disparity is greater for Black, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic
women than for White women, and for middle-age and older women
than for younger women.
‘‘We haven’t come a long way,’’ noted Elizabeth Janeway, ‘‘we’ve
come a short way. If we hadn’t come a short way, no one would be
calling us baby.’’
These realities of the psychology of women at work require an in-
depth look at not only the barriers to women’s success but also the
strategies for empowering women at the individual, organizational,
legal, and societal levels. These three volumes provide an overview of
the scholarly research on the issues related to women and work.
Volume 1, ‘‘Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium,’’
provides an overview of research on comparisons of men and women
REFERENCES
Allan, E., & Madden, M. (2006). Chilly classrooms for female undergraduate
students: A question of method? Journal of Higher Education, 77, 684–
711.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1992). The AAUW
report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2001). Hostile hallways:
Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: AAUW
Educational Foundation.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2002). Title IX at 30:
Report card on gender equity. Washington, DC: Author.
Levy, G., Sadovsky, A., & Troseth, G. (2000). Aspects of young children’s per-
ceptions of gender-typed occupations. Sex Roles, 42, 993–1006.
Naua, M., Epperson, D., & Kahn, J. (1998). A multiple-groups analysis of pre-
dictors of higher level career aspirations among women in mathematics,
science and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483–
496.
Paludi, M., & Fankell-Hauser, J. (1986). An idiographic approach to the study
of women’s achievement strivings. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 89–
100.
Paludi, M., Martin, J., & Paludi, C. (2007). Sexual harassment: The hidden gen-
der equity problem. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity
through education (pp. 215–229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paludi, M., Paludi, C., & DeFour, D. (2004). Introduction: Plus ca change, plus
c’est la meme chose (The more things change, the more they stay the same).
In M. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. xi–xxxi).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Richardson, B., & Sandoval, P. (2007). Impact of education on gender equity in
employment and its outcomes. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving
gender equity through education (pp. 43–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schroeder, P. (1998). 24 Years of housework . . . and the place is still a mess: My life
in politics. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel.
Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the
think-manager-think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.
Siegel, D., & Reis, S. M., (1998). Gender differences in teacher and student per-
ceptions of gifted students’ ability and effort. Gifted Children Quarterly, 42,
39–47.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Facts on women
workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Women in the labor
force: A data book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
White, M., & White, G. (2006). Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereo-
types. Sex Roles, 55, 259–266.
Woman’s idea of government. (1870). New York Herald, p. 6.
about competence and success that have led to practices and norms
constructed around the life experiences of men, and around a vision of
masculinity as the normal, universal requirement of university life’’ (p.
143). The productivity that counts is research productivity. Indicators
vary slightly by discipline, but in general, salary, rank, external fund-
ing, quantity of publications and patents, and scholarly awards com-
prise the traditional notions of career success in the academic sciences.
Research productivity (primarily measured by number of publications,
number of citations, and level of external grant funding) remains a cen-
tral value in the academic sciences and continues to serve as the pri-
mary measuring stick for tenure and advancement.
It is important to note that an individual’s products are subjected to
the evaluations of others in the academy and do not automatically trans-
late into achievement until they are recognized and valued as appropri-
ate and meeting explicit and often implicit standards. There is a
complex web of internal (institutional) and external (professional) gate-
keepers whose subjective judgments determine the granting of status
and prestige required for advancement in the academic environment. As
Fox (2005) has argued, understanding what is recognized as productivity
by gatekeepers is critical to the understanding and advancement of
women’s status in the sciences and engineering because productivity
functions both as a partial cause and an effect of that status.
These gatekeepers—including tenured faculty, department chairs,
deans, and upper administrators; journal reviewers and editors; study
section members and granting agency staff; scientific and professional
societies’ program and awards committees, among others—often have
ambiguous, conflicting, and unrealistic expectations and demands.
Sometimes what ‘‘counts’’ as productive is not clear until the tenure
decision. For example, teaching may be lauded, and service on commit-
tees may result in expressions of strong gratitude and appreciation
from one’s department chair. A woman may take on a teaching over-
load in response to departmental requests, serve as a member of
numerous graduate student committees, and provide key leadership
on a host of committees at the behest of the chair and higher adminis-
tration. But in STEM disciplines in many universities, although this
form of productivity is valuable to the institution, it is generally invisi-
ble and unrewarded at evaluation time. All these contributions will not
‘‘count’’ unless she first has a sufficient number of publications in the
‘‘right’’ journals and external funding for her research. Further, there is
no one number of publications to shoot for—that depends on what
others have done in one’s department or peer institutions (the fact that
others may have more resources or be less productive in other ways is
not relevant to the equation).
The consistently high levels of research productivity that are
expected at the top-tier universities require intense mental focus and
[Physicists] are regarded as having a kind of genius that sets them apart
from ordinary mortals. Physics is taken as society’s science par excellence. . . .
Because demigods are part of the direct professional parentage of those
who enter the field of physics, the mythification of careers may be espe-
cially prominent in this field.’’ (Hermanowicz, 2003, p. 50–51)
being judged via gender stereotypes; these worries in turn can nega-
tively affect their performance in math and science and lower self-
confidence (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005).
Recent research on identity threat (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007)
suggests that one response of women and minorities to situational cues
that trigger discomfort (e.g., a woman being outnumbered by men in a
group) is allocation of more attention toward those cues. This redirec-
tion of attention and focus away from the tasks at hand may lead to a
diminution of performance. In a study (Salvatore & Shelton, 2007) of
responses by Black volunteers to subtle racism (unfair but ambiguous
hiring decisions; e.g., candidate with superior resume rejected without
reason) versus overt racism (reason for hiring decision is that the can-
didate belonged to too many minority organizations), Black partici-
pants performed more poorly on a cognitive task under the ambiguous
condition when compared with the overt condition. The authors specu-
late that Black participants were applying their cognitive resources to
diagnose the vague unfairness and that this cognitive burden interfered
with a competing task. They reason that it is the constant and subtle
micro-aggressions that actually interfere most with the cognitive proc-
essing necessary for optimum task performance, rather than the overt
acts of discrimination that are more easily recognized and cognitively
processed.
Discouragement and discrimination, whether acute or accumulated,
are particularly damaging for women who feel they have no good
alternatives to withdrawing or leaving the institution altogether. The
case of the women scientists at MIT is notable for the risk they took
and exemplary in illustrating the power of mounting a group effort:
Driven all their professional lives to achieve at the highest possible
level, to many it seemed they were putting a lifetime of hard work and
good behavior at risk. They feared being seen as radical troublemakers,
as complainers. But the feeling of an injustice, the anger that accumu-
lates from this recognition, and the strong desire to change things for
themselves and for future generations of women propelled them for-
ward (Committee on Faculty Women, 1999, p. 7).
regard to the academic setting, a recent survey of 7,000 early career fac-
ulty were found to report even more dissatisfaction than the previous
year’s cohort with the imbalance between their professional and per-
sonal time; women continued to express significantly more dissatisfac-
tion than men with respect to work/life balance and institutional
support for having and raising children (COACHE, 2007). In a study of
over 1,500 women in the chemical industry (Fassinger & Giordan,
2007), 63% reported balancing work and family responsibilities among
the top two work-related stressors.
Hewlitt and Luce describes a rise in the phenomenon of ‘‘extreme
working’’ (2006), where excessively demanding careers exact a high toll
from their members. In a series of studies by the Center for Work-Life
Policy (Hewlitt & Luce, 2006), most women were found to decide
against ‘‘extreme’’ jobs, and among the 20% of extreme job holders
who are women, 80% of them do not want to work with the pressure
or long hours more than a year, compared with 58% of the men.
Research-intensive universities—particularly in the sciences and en-
gineering as described by Hermanowicz (1998, 2003, 2007)—represent
the epitome of extreme working organizations and what Coser and
Coser (1974) termed ‘‘greedy institutions.’’ In contrast to the increased
desire for more balance in work and other life roles on the part of new
and aspiring faculty members, the expectations of faculty in research
universities are increasing. Research universities, in a perpetual cycle
of efforts to strengthen rankings and external support, set ever higher
standards for judging the faculty for excellence in multiple academic
roles. While perhaps effective in boosting effort in the short run, over
time stressed and exhausted individuals experience diminished creativ-
ity and become at high risk for burning out. Cathy Trower (2007) of
COACHE concludes from hundreds of interviews with talented junior
faculty that the anxiety of junior faculty goes way beyond the usual
worry about establishing their research programs; rather, the stress
derives more from ‘‘the lack of resources, time, and support to be an
excellent scholar and an outstanding teacher and a stellar colleague and
campus citizen, all at once’’ (COACHE, 2007).
But the expectation for faculty to excel at multiple roles within the
academy is only a part of the picture. There is a strong albeit some-
times implicit expectation that faculty give their work roles their high-
est priority. There is little tolerance for decrements in research
productivity or performance that result from the responsibilities that
stem from competing professional or personal roles. Bailyn (2006) notes
that the lack of clear boundaries between work and family in academic
lives adds to the ease with which work crowds out family:
PROMISING PATHWAYS
Recent developments to improve the representation of women in the
sciences and engineering have focused largely on flexible work sched-
ules, improved mentoring, and management training to address bias
and equity in hiring and evaluation. There is much to be learned about
other best practices from the strategic initiatives launched at the 28
institutions that have received major NSF ADVANCE grants for Insti-
tutional Transformation projects in these areas.
A significant shift is occurring in science away from the celebration
of the individual genius; teamwork now characterizes much of science
(Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007). Research collaborations among scientists
around a theme of interest, as opposed to the more traditional group-
ing by narrow topic, discipline, or methodology, are characteristic of
the large interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research ventures now
being supported by federal sponsors. These projects operate through
research centers, training programs like IGERTs (NSF grants for Inte-
grative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships), and the multi-
institutional projects geared toward ‘‘big science’’ questions. In many
science and engineering fields, about 4 in 10 faculty members are affili-
ated with research centers in universities (Corley & Gaughan, 2005).
Some scholars have suggested that these types of research groups
are more likely to attract and favor women, but there has been little
empirical attention directed at verifying or refuting this supposition
(Rhoten & Pfirman, 2007). Following the psychosocial model proposed
here that a person’s perception of fit between one’s own preferences
CONCLUSIONS
We have argued that the persistently low numbers of women in
many science and engineering positions, particularly on the faculty of
research universities, can be attributed largely to the clash between
what STEM departments and universities offer and demand and what
talented women (and more and more junior faculty men) want and
deserve. University administrators as well as faculties have been slow
to recognize and respond to what even some industry sectors have
made central to their planning. Building an organizational culture that
promotes and honors both the career satisfaction and personal goals of
the individual along with the needs of the institution is becoming a
necessary condition for attracting and retaining the most talented
workforce. Bailyn (2006) noted that these matters pertain to all profes-
sionals now, not just to women:
The assumption that work roles can engage the exclusive commitment of
those who occupy them is no longer tenable. Nor can the difficulties of
pursuing complex careers any longer be seen as individual dilemmas, to
be solved in isolation. The issues transcend individual boundaries. They
involve the very core of organizational processes and demand dramatic
revision in a number of key underlying assumptions of organizational
life. (pp. xvi–xvii)
We have gone beyond the time when gender stereotyping and dis-
crimination were merely lamentable. We have a body of law that
makes overt discrimination, sexual harassment, and hostile working
environments illegal. However, overt discrimination, documentable in
courts of law, has mutated into more subtle forms of discrimination—
with their damage just as potent. The hierarchical structures of decision
making, the purveyors of departmental rankings, the striving for inclu-
sion in the disciplinary elite, the ambiguous and shifting standards of
evaluation, and the adherence to an individualistic, linear, reductionist,
and limited definition of productivity contribute to the circumplex that
characterizes today’s research universities and that makes them such
inhospitable and unforgiving environments in which to work.
Research universities continue to be slow to consider the very real
transformation that is occurring in the American psyche, and therefore
among students and aspiring and current faculty. Talented people,
whether women or men, scientists or artists, students or professionals,
have choices about how to construct or re-construct their lives.
Scientists and engineers, already elite by virtue of their educational
and professional achievements, are typically not hindered by doubts
about what they can achieve if they set their sights in a given direction.
They have the advantage of attractive options and the luxury to base
their actions and choices more on what they want for their lives.
As professional men and women shape their lives and careers today,
they are more likely than their parents to consider careers and places
of work that provide flexibility, allow a blend of productive work with
a satisfying personal and family life, and encourage creativity, collabo-
ration, and connection. They seek environments that provide active
support for professional success, demonstrate concern for the individ-
ual, and celebrate improvisation and change. Women who are talented
and accomplished scientists and engineers make choices that help them
progress toward their desired possible selves: productive, satisfied, and
meaningfully connected to colleagues, family, and society. It is the
challenge for universities to become the environments of choice for
these women.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. REC-0634519 to Bianca L. Bernstein.
Nancy Felipe Russo is a co-investigator.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessar-
ily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
Abriola, L. M., & Davies, M. W. (2006). Attracting and retaining women in engi-
neering: The Tufts experience. Cornell Higher Education Research Institute
Policy Research Conference. Doctoral Education and the Faculty of the
Future. Ithaca, NY. October 8–9, 2006. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/
conf/chericonf2006/Abriola.pdf.
American Association of University Professors (2006). AAUP faculty gender eq-
uity indicators 2006. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www.aaup.
org/AAUP/pubsres/research/geneq2006.htm.
Anderson-Rowland, M. R., Bernstein, B. L., & Russo, N. F. (2007a). Encouragers
and discouragers for domestic and international women in doctoral pro-
grams in engineering and computer science. Proceedings of the American
Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) 2007 Annual Conference, Hono-
lulu, Hawaii, June 2007. Available from http://www.asee.org/acPapers/
AC%202007Full2403.pdf.
Anderson-Rowland, M., Bernstein, B. L., & Russo, N. F. (2007b). The doctoral
program experience in engineering and computer science: Is it the same
for women and men? Proceedings of the Women in Engineering Programs
and Advocates Network (WEPAN) 2007 Annual Conference, Orlando,
Florida, June 2007. Available from http://www.x-cd.com/wepan07/
WEPAN2007_0055.pdf.
Anttila, T., Natti, J., & Vaisanen, M. (2005). The experiments of reduced work-
ing hours in Finland: Impact on work-family interaction and the impor-
tance of the sociocultural setting. Community, Work, and Family, 8, 187–209.
Astin, H., & Milem, J. (1997). The status of academic couples in U.S. institu-
tions. In M. A. Ferber & J. W. Loeb (Eds.), Academic couples: Problems and
promises (pp. 128–155). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty. The Journal of
Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.
Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from
MIT. Gender, Work and Organizations, 10(2), 137–153.
Bailyn, L. (2006). Breaking the mold: Redesigning work for productive and satisfying
lives (2nd ed.) New York: Cornell University Press.
Barak, M., & Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and
excluded from the work community: A study of diversity, job satisfaction
and well-being. Community, Work and Family, 5, 133–157.
Barbezat, D. A. (1992). The market for new Ph.D. economists. Journal of Eco-
nomic Education, Summer, 262–275.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expan-
sionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
Bateson, M. C. (1989). Composing a life: Life as a work in progress—the improvisa-
tions of five extraordinary women. New York: Plume.
Benokraitis, N. V. (Ed.). (1997). Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for
change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Berdahl, J. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 425–437.
Bernstein, B. L., & Russo, N. F. (2007). Career paths and family in the academy:
Progress and challenges. In M. A. Paludi & P. E. Neidermeyer (Eds.),
Work, life, and family imbalance: How to level the playing field. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Betz, N. E. (1989). Implications of the null environment hypothesis for women’s
career development and for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychol-
ogist, 17, 136–144.
Biernat, M., Crosby, F. J., & Williams, J. C. (2004). The maternal wall: Research
and policy perspectives on discrimination against mothers. Journal of Social
Issues, 60 (special issue).
Bilimoria, D., Perry, S. R., Liang, X., Stoller, E. P., Higgins, P., & Taylor, C.
(2006). How do female and male faculty members construct job satisfac-
tion? The roles of perceived institutional leadership and mentoring and
their mediating processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 355–365.
Boice, R. (1993). Primal origins and later correctives for mid-career disillusion-
ment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 55, 33–41.
Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human
capital: An alternative approach to R&D evaluation. International Journal of
Technology Management, 22(8), 716–740.
Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 554–
594). New York: McGraw Hill.
Brown, S., & Lent, R. (2004). Career development and counseling: Putting theory
and research to work. New York: Wiley.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007). Women in the labor force: A databook (2007 Edition);
Table 11. Employed persons by detailed occupation and sex, 2006 annual
averages. Available from http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-table11-2007.pdf
Callister, R. R. (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job sat-
isfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering
fields. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 367–375.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual
framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 92, 111–135.
Catalyst (2007). The double-bind dilemma for women in leadership: Damned if you
do, doomed if you don’t. New York: Catalyst. Available from http://www.
catalyst.org.
Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education [COACHE] (2007).
COACHE highlights report 2007. Cambridge, MA.
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (2006). Professional
women and minorities: A total human resources data compendium. Washington,
DC: CPST.
Cole, J. R., & Singer, B. (1991). A theory of limited differences: Explaining the
productivity puzzle in science. In H. Zuckerman, J. R. Cole, & J. T. Bruer.
The outer circle: Women in the scientific community (pp. 277–310). New York:
W.W. Norton.
Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and
change in patterns of publication among men and women scientists. In M.
W. Steinkamp, M. L. Maehr, D. A. Kleiber, & J. G. Nicholls (Eds.), Advances
in motivation and achievement (pp. 217–258). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research per-
formance in science. Scientific American, 255, 119–125.
Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and En-
gineering & Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine (2006). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in
academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Committee on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST, 2006). Four deca-
des of STEM degrees, 1966–2004: ‘‘The devil is in the details.’’ STEM Workforce
Data Project: Report No. 6. Washington, DC: CPST.
Committee on Women Faculty in the School of Science at MIT (1999). A study
of the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Cambridge, MA: Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology. Available from http://web.mit.edu/fnl/
women/women.pdf.
Corley, E. A. (2005). How do career strategies, gender, and work environment
affect faculty productivity levels in university-based science centers?
Review of Policy Research, 22(5), 637–655.
Corley, E. A., & Gaughan, M. (2005). Scientists’ participation in university
research centers: What are the gender differences? Journal of Technology
Transfer, 20(4), 371–381.
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75.
Coser, R. L., & Coser, L. A. (1974). The housewife and her greedy family. In
L. A. Coser (Ed.), Greedy institutions (pp. 89–100). New York: Free Press.
Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle:
Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math per-
formance. Psychological Science, 16, 175–179.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
King, L. A., & Hicks, J. A. (2007). Whatever happened to ‘‘what might have
been’’? Regrets, happiness, and maturity. American Psychologist, 62, 625–636.
Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender
differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology, & Human Values,
21, 54–71.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
MacNeil, L., & Sher, M. (1999). The dual career couple problem. Physics Today,
52(7), 32–37.
Markus, H., & Nurius (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.
Mason, M., & Goulden, M. (2004). Do babies matter (Part II)? Closing the baby
gap. Academe, 90(6), 1–10.
Mason, M., Stacy, A., Goulden, M., Hoffman, C., & Frasch, K. (2005). Faculty
family friendly edge: An initiative for tenure-track faculty at the University of
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Mor Barak, M.E.M., & Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream
and excluded from the work community: A study of diversity, job satisfac-
tion and well-being. Community, Work & Family, 5(2), 133–157.
Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situa-
tional cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psy-
chological Science, 18, 879–889.
National Academies (2006). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of
women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council, Committee on Women in Science and Engineering
(2001a). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral
scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: NRC.
National Research Council, Committee on Women in Science and Engineering
(2001b). Female engineering faculty at U.S. institutions: A data profile. Avail-
able from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cwse.
National Science Foundation (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabil-
ities in science and engineering: 2004, NSF 04-317. Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics.
National Science Foundation (2007). Women, minorities, and persons with disabil-
ities in science and engineering: 2007, NSF 07-315. Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. Available
from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.
Nelson, D. J. (2005). A national analysis of diversity in science and engineering facul-
ties at research universities. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. Available
from http://cheminfo.chem.ou.edu/djn/diversity/briefings/Diversity%
20Report%20Final.pdf.
Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to the PhD.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Niemeier, D. A., & Gonzales, C. (2004). Breaking into the Guild Masters’ Club:
What we know about women science and engineering department chairs
at AAU universities. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 16(1),
157–171.
Ostroff, C., Shin, Y., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Multiple perspectives of congru-
ence: Relationships between value congruence and employee attitudes.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 591–623.
Perna, L. W. (2005). Sex differences in faculty tenure and promotion: The con-
tribution of family ties. Research in Higher Education, 46(3), 277–307.
Pizzolato, J. E. (2007). Impossible selves: Investigating students’ persistence
decisions when their career-possible selves border on impossible. Journal of
Career Development, 33(3), 201–223.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2006). Essentializing differences between
women and men. Psychological Science, 17, 129–135.
Preston, A. E. (2004). Leaving science: Occupational exit from science careers. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Rankin, P., Nielsen, J., & Stanley, D. M. (2007). Weak links, hot networks, and
tacit knowledge – Why advancing women requires networking. In A. J.
Stewart, J. E. Malley, & D. LaVaque-Manty (Eds.), Transforming science and
engineering: Advancing academic women (pp. 31–47). Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Rapoport, R. L., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. K., & Pruitt, B. H. (2002). Beyond work-
family balance: Achieving gender equity and workplace performance. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reybold, L. E. (2005). Surrendering the dream: Early career conflict and fac-
ulty dissatisfaction thresholds. Journal of Career Development, 32(2), 107–
121.
Rhoten, D., & Pfirman, S. (2007). Women, science and interdisciplinary ways of
working. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved on October 22, 2007, from
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/10/22/rhoten.
Ruvolo, A. P., & Markus, H. R. (1992). Possible selves and performance: The
power of self-relevant imagery. Social Cognition, 10, 95–124.
Salvatore, J., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Cognitive costs of exposure to racial preju-
dice. Psychological Science, 18, 810–815.
Savickas (2004). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown
& R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and
research to work. Hobokon, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for
women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47–58.
Smith, J. W. (2005). The influences of gender, race, and ethnicity on workplace
experiences of institutional and social isolation: An exploratory study of
university faculty. Sociological Spectrum, 25, 307–334.
Smith-Doerr, L. (2004). Women’s work: Gender equality vs. hierarchy in the life sci-
ences. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Sonnert, G. (1995). Gender equity in the academy: Still an elusive goal. Issues in
Science and Technology, 12(2), 53–58.
Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. (1995). Gender differences in science careers. New Bruns-
wick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. (1996). Career patterns of women and men in the sci-
ences. American Scientist, 84(1), 63–71.
Sourdif, J. (2004). Predictors of nurses’ intent to stay at work in a university
health center. Nursing and Health Sciences, 6, 59–68.
approach,’’ which focused on the types of leaders who are most effec-
tive in specific types of situations (Vroom & Jago, 2007); and ‘‘inte-
grative theories’’ of leadership, which not only examined the
contribution of specific characteristics of leaders and the impact of the
situation, but expanded the analysis to include factors such as relation-
ships with followers, and the role of the context and culture in deter-
mining effectiveness of leaders (Avolio, 2007).
Many of these past and current theories appear to be more explana-
tory of how men achieve high positions rather than women. For years
in business, academia, and the military, the majority of leaders were
male, which can account for the research emphasis on men as leaders.
More recently, however, women began to be promoted to middle-man-
agement positions in a variety of settings, including politics. Although
the situation has improved somewhat for potential women leaders, it
still appears that the glass ceiling exists with respect to the highest
positions; for example, women are underrepresented as chief executive
officers (CEOs), on corporate boards, as presidents of universities, as
generals and admirals in the Armed Forces, and as president and vice
president in the United States. In the past 2 years, the gender imbal-
ance in U.S. politics seems to be changing to some degree. Nancy
Pelosi is the first woman Speaker of the House, an extremely powerful
political position; there are female senators; and Hillary Rodham Clin-
ton is running for president of the United States.
In this chapter, first we will describe a model or approach to leader-
ship that has considerable applicability to women in various fields. In
subsequent sections, we will examine barriers preventing women from
achieving leadership positions as well as the conditions that favor
women leaders. Brief discussions of conditions in the corporate world,
academia, the health professions, and blue-collar occupations, with
accompanying barriers and recommendations to eliminate these bar-
riers, will be presented.
LEADERSHIP STYLES
As described by Eagly (2007), Burns (1978) distinguished among
three types of leadership styles:
BARRIERS
Underrepresentation in Academia
Some researchers suggest that women in the professoriate are under-
represented as compared to men because of the fact that they have
only recently gained degrees. With predictions that the number of
women who obtain professional degrees will continue to increase
comes part of the solution that will likely ease the gender disparity
problem. Contrary to this is data from the NCES, which indicates that,
while the percentage of women who have obtained doctorates has
grown significantly, the percentage of women who have achieved ten-
ured status at academic institutions has remained fairly consistent since
the 1970s (Mason & Goulden, 2002).
Access to Resources
Lack of access to career advice, resources, mentoring, and socializa-
tion of women faculty (i.e., being taught negotiation and self-promotion
skills) is another variable purported to negatively impact the attain-
ment of leadership positions for women. One woman’s experience
working as a faculty member at a top-tier institution follows:
I feel like there’s this system that is more likely to take these men under
their wings. I’ve seen it. They take men under their wings, and they give
them the inside scoop, and they ‘‘mentor them’’—tell them what they
need to or have to do or put you on this paper, and I just don’t see that
happening with the women. (Tracy, Singer, & Singer, n.d., slide 4)
Research also shows evidence of bias in hiring and CV reviews, post-
doctoral fellowship awards, peer reviews, letters of recommendation,
salary determinants, and teaching evaluations (Tracy et al., n.d.). Fur-
thermore, marginalization is more likely to occur as women progress
into better paying and higher level positions (Glazer, 1999).
Judith Rodin
Judith Rodin, former president of University of Pennsylvania, was
the first female president of an Ivy League university and served from
1994 to 2004. She is an alumna of the University of Pennsylvania and
received her PhD from Columbia University in 1970. While president
at Penn, the university rose from 16th place to 4th place in the U.S.
News College Ranking. Furthermore, Dr. Rodin is credited with improv-
ing the atmosphere of the areas that surround the campus. In her final
year as president of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Rodin’s salary
was $986,915, making her the highest paid university president in the
country (Wikipedia.org, n.d.).
Ruth Simmons
Ruth Simmons is the 18th president of Brown University and the
first African-American president of an Ivy League institution. She grad-
uated from Dillard University in 1967 and received her doctorate in
come a long way within psychology, but they still have not achieved
leadership positions. Stereotypical roles operate in psychology as in
other fields, and women are less likely to have attained leadership
positions in academia or the professional association, the American
Psychological Association (APA), than men. Although these figures are
increasing, only about 25% of the full professors within U.S. graduate
institutions of psychology are female. Only 11 of APA’s past presidents
have been women, and in 2005 women held fewer than 38% of the edi-
tor and associate editor roles for APA journals (Cnkar, 2007).
A similar pattern exists in the medical field. Women made up
49% of the first-year medical class in 2005, but in U.S. medical
school faculties only one-sixth of the full professorship is female
(Association of American Medical Colleges [AAMC], 2007). This fig-
ure has increased, but not dramatically in the last few years. Yedidia
and Bickel (2001) asked clinical department chairs why there
were not more women leaders in academic medicine. The authors
received a variety of responses in their open-ended interviews with
34 chairs and two division chiefs. The responses tended to center on
the following issues:
. The constraints of traditional gender roles (e.g., women are less likely to
have the time since they have more family responsibilities; it is harder for
them to move to accept job offers; only superstar women can do it all)
. Sexism in the medical environment (e.g., sexual harassment, lack of
respect for women’s opinions, old-boy patterns of promotion)
. Lack of mentoring
chair plays a critical role. Deans can play a stronger role in training and
monitoring their chairs.
. A program for general faculty development should be created in institu-
tions so that the professional development needs of women are addressed
within this context. For instance, one criterion for evaluating faculty can
be their skill in and experience of mentoring junior faculty, including
women.
. Institutional practices should be assessed to see which policies favor
men’s over women’s professional development. For instance, the defini-
tion of professional success as a number of publications as sole author
ignores contributions to local missions and collaborative research. In gen-
eral, women faculty members’ more collaborative, relational work is less
visible, and criteria may need to change to recognize and reinforce these
activities. In addition, ignoring one’s family’s needs should not be seen as
a sign of commitment to the profession.
. Enhance the effectiveness of search committees in attracting female can-
didates. Committees should assess for unintended gender bias within
their work. In addition, search committees need more than one female
member.
. Provide financial support for programs that monitor the representation of
women at senior ranks.
UNIONS
In March 1974, more than 3,000 blue-collar women gathered in Chi-
cago to form the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2000). The agenda included ways to end sex dis-
crimination in wages and hiring and how to elect more female officials
to the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Unions
(AFL-CIO). At the time, the CLUW was considered evidence of a new
offshoot of the women’s liberation movement deemed to be ‘‘blue-
collar feminism.’’ Feminism became an integral part of the working
women’s agenda, and in blue-collar positions this took the form of
advocating for day care, maternity benefits, equal pay, and other issues
important to working women.
Despite many obstacles in the past, many women have organized
themselves or joined with men to form unions to fight for equal rights
and benefits on behalf of all workers. One of the earliest unions was
the Collar Laundry Union of Troy, New York. The Knights of Labor, a
national union founded in 1969, is another example. Unions such as
the United Auto Workers have made consistent strides in protecting
their female workers; it has endorsed equal pay, gender-integrated se-
niority lists, day care, and the Equal Rights Amendment. However, in
the United States, only 7 million out of a total of 58 million working
women (11%) belong to unions or professional organizations.
Although union wages have not risen as fast as nonunion wages in
recent years, union workers still earn more, on average, than their non-
union counterparts. Estimates of Employer Costs for Employee Com-
pensation, for example, show that, in March 2001, wages and salaries
for private industry union workers averaged $18.36 per hour, com-
pared with $14.81 for nonunion workers (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2001). Similarly, data from the Current Population Survey show that, in
2000, median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers
were $691 for workers represented by unions, compared with $542 for
nonunion workers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000). Finally, data from
the 1999 National Compensation Survey show that union workers had
CASE VIGNETTES
Despite barriers to women in blue-collar occupations, more and
more women in the police and fire forces are beginning to take on
leadership positions, which were previously exclusively reserved for
men. By 2004, there were four female police chiefs of major U.S. cities:
Boston, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Detroit, the first women in each
respective city to hold that position.
Cathy Lanier
In May 2007, Cathy Lanier was appointed the new Washington, DC,
police chief. A high school dropout and a mother at 15 years old, Lanier
has always faced challenging life situations and is someone who has
succeeded and pulled herself up in the face of them. After earning her
high school equivalency degree, she became a police officer in 1990 and
then went on to earn a bachelor’s and then a master’s degree in manage-
ment from Johns Hopkins University. Lanier then completed another
master’s degree in national security from the Naval Postgraduate School.
A hard worker, she was promoted up through the ranks, but this was
not without cost. Lanier reports being sexually harassed several times on
the job, once by her supervisor (CNN, 2007). She stated that during
those times she reminded herself of the other women who suffered from
similar discrimination and continued to persevere.
Joanne Hayes-White
On Monday July 2, 2004, Joanne Hayes-White was sworn in as San
Francisco Fire Department’s new chief; she was the first female chief of
the city. Additionally, Hayes-White will be a female chief of the largest
urban fire department headed by a woman, with Cobb County, Geor-
gia, and the Tacoma, Washington, departments being second and third,
respectively (West, 2004). Hayes-White graduated with a business
degree from the University of Santa Clara and joined the fire depart-
ment in 1990. Impressively, by 1993 she was promoted to lieutenant
and by 1996 was a captain. In 1998, she was promoted to assistant
deputy chief. The San Francisco Fire Department only had its first
female firefighter in 1987, after a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that
the department had to hire more women and minorities. Currently, in
San Francisco approximately 12% of the 230 firefighters are women
(West).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Regardless of the progress that women have made in leadership in
various occupations and settings, there is still much to be accomplished
in the future. As Margaret Chesney stated regarding women and lead-
ership: ‘‘The ceiling is breaking—but watch out for falling glass’’
(Chesney, 2007). Unfortunately, despite progress, there is still a vast
amount yet to be achieved and other sets of concerns of which women
must be aware. The following are some general recommendations sug-
gested by Margaret Chesney at the 2007 Committee on Women in Psy-
chology Leadership Institute meeting, which are geared toward
helping women accomplish success in various fields, deal with discrim-
ination, and become strong leaders.
1. Determine what type of leader you want to be: ‘‘Instrumental,’’ i.e., those
dedicating their life to their job, or a ‘‘Balancer,’’ i.e., those who look for
more of a balance in life. Women who seek more balance in their life
must make personal choices about how much they can do, and work
within those boundaries.
2. Identify what is valued at the workplace. Each work setting is different
and a woman should identify not just what is ‘‘said’’ is important, but
what the real messages are.
3. Seek mentors. Finding another female leader who will offer practical
advice, give support, and show other women the ropes is important. This
opens up vast networks and gives much-needed support and encourage-
ment to women who are trying to succeed. Men can be helpful mentors
as well, and may offer a different perspective, which can be valuable.
4. Become educated. Taking some form of leadership training or educa-
tional classes helps women advance. This will add knowledge and mar-
ketability.
5. Support other women. Women should work on keeping the lines of com-
munication open by decreasing a cut-throat atmosphere between women,
often found in the workplace. Helping other deserving women to be pro-
moted is one step that can help increase the numbers and successes of
female leaders. This also can include helping later career women reenter
the workforce.
6. Do not be satisfied with modest gains—expect more. Women should not
be satisfied with what they are given. Rather, they should work, not just
for medium gains, but for all gains they truly deserve.
REFERENCES
Association of American Medical Colleges (2007). Women in U.S. Academic
Medicine Statistics and Medical School Benchmarking 2005–2006. Available
from http://www.aamc,org/members/wim.statistics/Stats06/start.htm.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership
theory-building. American Psychologist, 62, 25–33.
Bickel, J., Wara, D., Atkinson, B. F., Cohen, L. S., Dunn, M., Hostler, S., John-
son, T.R.B., Monahan, P., Rubenstein, A. H., Sheldon, G. F., & Stokes, E.
(2002). Increasing women’s leadership in academic medicine: Report of the
AAMC Committee. Academic Medicine, 77, 1043–1061.
Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinksy, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of
the national study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work
Institute.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001, January). National compensation survey: Occupa-
tional wages in the United States, 2001, Bulletin 2552.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chesney, M. A. (2007, September). Women in leadership – the ceiling is breaking
. . . but watch out for falling glass. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Committee on Women in Psychology Leadership Institute for Women in
Psychology: Qualitative Evaluation of Training Needs, Washington, DC.
Cnkar, A. (2007). The changing gender composition of psychology. Monitor on
Psychology 38, 46–47.
CNN (2007). D.C.’s first female police chief not afraid of challenge. Retrieved on Au-
gust 12, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com.
Collins, L. H., Chrisler, J. C., & Quina, K. (Eds.) (1998). Career strategies for
women in academe. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
DeLong, B. J. (1997). Assessing globalization as a cause of blue-collar wage decline.
Retrieved from http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/Global_Wages.htm.
Denmark, F. L. (1977). Styles of leadership. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2,
99–113.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving
the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women
become leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward
female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Einhart, N. (2001). Survival tactic: Recognize your female talent. Fast Company.
Retrieved on August 10, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com.
Fernandes, E., & Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2003). Gender asymmetries and the man-
ager stereotype among management students. Women in Management
Review, 18, 77–87.
Finder, A., & Rimer, S. (2007, February 9). Harvard plans to name its first
female president. The New York Times. Retrieved on August 26, 2007, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/business/08cnd-harvard.html?ex¼
1328677200&en¼86812ecb327aa651&ei¼5088&partner¼rssnyt&emc¼rss.
Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends and education equity of girls and women: 2004.
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on August 10, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_6/6_4/8_1.asp.
Glazer, J. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe. Baltimore, MD: The
Peters Hopkins University Press.
Kelleher, K. (2006, September). Simmons’ compensation nears $700K. The Brown
Daily Herald. Retrieved on August 26, 2007, from http://media.www.
browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/09/06/Campus
News/Simmons.Compensation.Nears.700k-2258413.shtml.
Kottke, J. L., & Agars, M. D. (2005). Understanding the processes that facilitate
and hinder efforts to advance women in organizations. Career Development
International, 10, 190–202.
Long, J. S. (Ed.) (2001). From scarcity to visibility. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Madsen, S. R. (2007). Women university presidents: Career paths and educa-
tional backgrounds. Academic Leadership, 5(1), 11–16.
Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2002). Do babies matter: The effect of family for-
mation on the lifelong careers of academic men and women. Retrieved on
August 25, 2007, from http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/
2002/02nd/02ndmas.htm.
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., Van Velsor, E., & the Center for Creative Leader-
ship (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Digest of education statistics tables
and figures. Retrieved on August 10, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pro-
grams/digest/d98/d98t212.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Degrees conferred: Degrees, by
level of degree and sex of recipient. In Projection of Education Statistics to
2014 (section 4). Retrieved on August 10, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/
programs/projections/sec_4b.asp.
National Science Foundation Advance Proposal (n.d.). Retrieved on August 25,
2007, from http://www.case.edu/admin/aces.
National Science Foundation (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabil-
ities in science and engineering: 2000. Appendix, Table 5-24. Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation.
Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions:
Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27,
321–334.
O’Connor, L. (2004, September). Female college, university presidents are on
the rise. The Daily Collegian Online. Retrieved on August 25, 2007, from
http://collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/09/09-30-04tdc/09-30-04dnews-05.
asp.
Peter & Horn (n.d.). Gender differences in participation and completion of
undergraduate education and how they have changed over time. National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on August 10, 2006, from http://
nces.ed.gov/das/epubs/2005169/gender_2.asp.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2003). Gender, gender identity, and aspira-
tions to top management. Women in Management Review, 18, 88–96.
Ridgeway, C. (2001). Gender, status and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
637–655.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash
toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
Tallichet, S. (1995). Gendered relations in the mines and the division of labor
underground. Gender & Society, 9, 697–711.
Tracy, E. M., Singer, M. I., & Singer, L. T. (n.d.). Gender issues in the path to aca-
demic leadership. Retrieved on August 15, 2007, from case.edu/admin/
aces/documents/Gender_Issues_in_the_Path_to_Academic_Leadership.ppt.
U.S. Department of Labor (1999). National Compensation Survey (NCS).
U.S. Department of Labor (2000). Current Population Survey (CPS).
Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of
women in academia. Hypatia, 20(3), 198–213.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership.
American Psychologist, 62, 17–24.
West, P. (2004). San Francisco installs female fire chief. Retrieved on August 12,
2007, from http://www.firechief.com.
What presidents think about higher education (2005, November 4). Chronicles of
Higher Education, pp. A25–A39.
Wikipedia.org (n.d.). ‘‘Susan Hockfield,’’ ‘‘Judith Rodin,’’ and ‘‘Ruth Sim-
mons.’’ Retrieved on August 20, 2007, from wikipedia.org.
Women’s History in America (n.d.). Retrieved on September 15, 2006, from
http://www.wic.org/misc/history.
Yedidia, M. J., & Bickel, J. (2001). Why aren’t there more women leaders in aca-
demic medicine? The views of clinical department chairs. Academic Medi-
cine, 76, 453–465.
Yoder, J. (2001). Strategies for change: Making leadership work more effectively
for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828.
Zaccaro, S. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist,
62, 6–16.
CENTRAL CONCEPTS
Incivility
Workplace incivility is a mild form of workplace mistreatment,
which also includes bullying, emotional, physical, and psychological
abuse, tyrannical, deviant, and antisocial behavior. Andersson and
Pearson (1999) defined workplace incivility as ‘‘low-intensity deviant
behavior with ambiguous (italics added) intent to harm the target, in
violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are
characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for
others’’ (p. 457). Ambiguity or lack of deliberate intent to do harm is a
key element of incivility that differentiates it from other types of work-
place mistreatment. Because the uncivil behavior is subtle, the perpe-
trator can easily mask his or her intent to do harm on another person,
for example, by suggesting that he or she was just joking around or by
using silence as a form of suppression and censorship; such silence
may exclude or negate an important aspect of an individual’s identity
(Ward & Winstanley, 2003). Because incivility is often linked to an
employee’s ability to do his or her job, it promotes social isolation and
withdrawal from one’s job and work (Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner,
2001).
There are many potential causes or antecedents of workplace incivil-
ity suggested in the literature. According to Andersson and Pearson
(1999), incivility is an interpersonal process dependent on person-
environment factors that create incivility spirals (e.g., a perceived act of
incivility fosters further uncivil acts, forming a spiral of aggression and
counter-aggression that permeates the entire organization). Incivility
spirals may begin with a perception of interpersonal injustice (e.g., a
slight to one’s self-identity or social identity) that causes an employee
to feel aggrieved, which may result in anger and desire for revenge for
the perceived organizational or societal norm that has been violated.
Thus, perceived injustice is an important antecedent of incivility
(Baron, Neuman, & Geddes, 1999).
Andersson and Pearson (1999) argue that personal factors that pre-
dict incivility spirals include propensity to anger, impulsiveness (e.g.,
lack of self-control), reactivity (e.g., sensitivity to negative events), and
rebelliousness (e.g., independence, self-sufficiency, and resistance to
peer pressure). Individuals with these personality traits tend to handle
the daily hassles of work by engaging in disrespectful or condescend-
ing behaviors.
Furthermore, to handle occupational stress, individuals with the
above personality traits may use alcohol and/or drugs while at work
as coping mechanisms, which, in turn, further incites inappropriate
behaviors (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Although there is empirical
evidence to support a ‘‘hot temperament’’ personality type as a
Sexual Harassment
In the United States, sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimina-
tion that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since 1980,
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment
when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implic-
itly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, (2) submission to
or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for
employment decisions affecting such individuals, or (3) such conduct has
the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s
work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
environment. (Code of Federal Regulations, 2000, p. 186)
Parts 1 and 2 refer to quid pro quo sexual harassment in which sex-
ual favors are required to keep a job or receive job-related benefits,
whereas part 3 refers to a hostile work environment. Additionally, the
EEOC (2007a) states the victim and the alleged perpetrator may be of
the same sex. The victim does not have to be the direct target, but
could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct (e.g., a bystander).
Further, the victim of sexual harassment does not have to show that
she or he has suffered economic or psychological harm; however, the
harassment must be unwelcome.
Although men are also victims of sexual harassment, women are
much more likely to be victims than men are. For instance, during 2006
the EEOC (2007a) received 12,025 charges of sexual harassment, of
which 15.4% were filed by men.
Psychologically, sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexually
offensive behavior that threatens one’s psychological health and well-
being (Fitzgerald, Swan, & Magley, 1997). Fitzgerald et al. (1988) devel-
oped a behavior-based instrument, the Sexual Experiences Question-
naire (SEQ), to assess sexual harassment by asking respondents if they
had experienced a list of unwanted sexual behaviors. The authors
reported that the factor structure of the SEQ revealed a tripartite model
consisting of gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sex-
ual coercion. Gender harassment refers to sexist behaviors that do not
appear to elicit sexual cooperation but rather convey hostile and offen-
sive attitudes toward members of one gender. Unwanted sexual atten-
tion refers to sexual behaviors that are unwanted and unreciprocated.
Sexual coercion refers to explicit or implicit bribes or threats in order
to gain sexual favors. Gender harassment and unwanted sexual atten-
tion seem to parallel the legal definition of hostile work environment,
whereas sexual coercion seems to parallel the legal definition of quid
pro quo. Research indicates that gender harassment is the most com-
mon type of sexual harassment, followed by unwanted sexual atten-
tion, with sexual coercion being the least common (Pryor & Fitzgerald,
2003).
women as the harassers, whereas 21% of the men reported other men
as the harassers (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1995).
Dubois, Knapp, Faley, and Kustis (1998) re-analyzed the 1988 DoD
survey results. Of those military personnel who reported at least one
potentially sexually harassing experience, only 1% of military women
reported having experienced same-sex sexual harassment, whereas 35%
of military men did. Next, the authors compared the impact of same-
and cross-sex sexual harassment on the professional and personal lives
of military men and women. They found that the impact of same-sex
sexual harassment was much more harmful for men than for women.
Dubois et al. concluded that same-sex sexual harassment of men is part
of a masculine culture in which harassment is directed at those who
violate traditional gender norms.
Bastian et al. (1996) examined the 1995 SEQ-DoD survey results
among military personnel who reported at least one potentially sexu-
ally harassing experience. They found that 51% of military men
reported having been harassed exclusively by other men and another
16% reported having been harassed by both male and female perpetra-
tors. However, only 2% of military women reported having been har-
assed by other women and another 6% reported having been harassed
by both men and women.
Furthermore, Stockdale, Visio, and Batra (1999) re-analyzed the 1995
SEQ-DoD survey results among military personnel who reported at
least one potentially sexually harassing experience. The authors found
that among those who completed a section that asked them to describe
‘‘the most distressing experience,’’ 53% of the men, as compared to 2%
of the women, reported that the harasser was of the same sex. Next,
Stockdale et al. compared the impact of same- and cross-sex sexual
harassment. They found that men who had experienced same-sex sex-
ual harassment rated their experience as more annoying, offensive, dis-
turbing, embarrassing, and upsetting than did men who had
experienced cross-sex sexual harassment. Similar to Dubois et al.’s con-
clusion (1998), Stockdale et al. concluded that same-sex sexual harass-
ment induces ‘‘lesser’’ men to conform to hypermasculine gender role
expectations, in which masculinity is related to dominance, whereas
femininity is related to weakness and subservience.
The 2002 SEQ-DoD survey results also showed that 51% of military
men reported having been harassed exclusively by other men and
another 27% reported having been harassed by both men and women
(Lipari & Lancaster, 2003). However, only 1% of military women
reported having been harassed exclusively by other women, and
another 14% reported having been harassed by both men and women.
The above studies suggest that men experience same-sex sexual har-
assment more often than women do. However, the surveys from the
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1981, 1988, 1995) and those from
the DoD (Bastian et al., 1996; Lipari & Lancaster, 2003; Martindale,
1991) were originally designed to measure the experiences of women;
hence, these surveys may not adequately account for the experiences of
men, especially experiences that involve same-sex sexual harassment
(Berdahl, Magley, & Waldo, 1996).
Berdahl et al. (1996) suggested that men feel harassed by behavior
that challenges current constructions of masculinity as a domain of
qualities reserved for men (e.g., dominance, privilege, and success in
the workplace), whereas women feel harassed by behavior that reinfor-
ces constructions of femininity as subordination in the workplace. Ber-
dahl et al. discovered behaviors that were perceived to be harassing to
men that were not identified as such for women (e.g., being harassed
for engaging in ‘‘non-masculine behavior’’). These behaviors were then
incorporated into a new instrument called the Sexual Harassment of
Men (SHOM) (Waldo, Berdahl, & Fitzgerald, 1998).
Like the SEQ, the SHOM (Waldo et al., 1998) uses a behavioral expe-
riences approach to assess men’s experiences with sexual harassment.
The SHOM has five subscales: three for gender harassment (lewd com-
ments, enforcement of the traditional masculine gender role, and nega-
tive remarks about men), one for unwanted sexual attention, and one
for sexual coercion. The SHOM has good internal reliability coefficients
across three diverse samples of men (378 men from a large public util-
ity company in the northwest, 209 male faculty and staff from a large
midwestern university, and about 420 men from western agribusiness
food processing plants).
Waldo et al. (1998) found that, during the past 24 months, between
40% and 53% of these men identified men or mostly men as the perpe-
trators of sexually harassing behavior, and these same-sex experiences
consisted mostly of lewd comments and endorsement of masculine
gender-role behavior. The authors concluded that ‘‘male–male sexual
harassment is far more common than typically assumed by researchers,
popular media, or the general public’’ (p. 72).
et al., 2007). College women were also significantly more likely to endorse
unwanted sexual behaviors between individuals of the same sex as
constituting sexual harassment at work or in educational settings than
did college men. The authors suggested that women are more likely to
empathize with the victim, regardless of the victim’s sex or sexual ori-
entation, because of women’s inferior position in society and of their
greater personal experience with, and therefore greater knowledge of,
the negative consequences of sexual harassment.
Consequences
A recent meta-analysis of 41 empirical studies with a total sample
size of almost 70,000 employees, of which 59% completed the SEQ,
examined three types of consequences of sexual harassment experien-
ces: job-related, psychological, and health-related (Willness, Steel, &
Lee, 2007). The findings showed that sexually harassing experiences
had several negative outcomes, including decreased job satisfaction
(especially with interpersonal aspects of work, such as with co-
workers), lower organizational commitment, work withdrawal (e.g.,
missing work, neglecting tasks), ill physical and mental health, and
symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, which suggests that some
types of sexual harassment may be considered traumatic events.
The above findings indicate that sexual harassment is a work stres-
sor to employees, which is costly to organizations. Willness et al. (2007)
estimated that sexual harassment is costing organizations an average of
$22,500 per employee in terms of lost productivity alone. In addition,
unlike incivility, sexual harassment is illegal behavior that can cost
organizations millions of dollars in litigation and monetary awards; for
instance, during 2006, the EEOC (2007b) reported $59.8 million paid in
monetary benefits over and above litigation.
Lapierre, Spector, and Leck (2005) conducted a meta-analytic study
to compare the effects of sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression
(including incivility) on employees’ overall job satisfaction, which is
one of the best indicators of employees’ attitude toward the quality of
their overall work experience. The authors included in their analyses
25 studies on incivility and related constructs, representing a total of 28
independent samples (three of which completed the WIS), and 19 stud-
ies on sexual harassment, representing a total of 22 independent sam-
ples (12 of which completed the SEQ). Concerning sexual aggression,
because there were only two samples that included women as well as
men, the authors compared sexual to nonsexual aggression only among
women in order to hold victims’ gender constant. Hence, gender com-
parisons were conducted only on nonsexual aggression. The findings
showed that both types of workplace aggression negatively affected
victims’ overall job satisfaction. When the authors compared the two
reporting having experienced more uncivil acts than their male coun-
terparts (52%). Concerning sexual harassment, there were significant
gender differences. Among the faculty, more women (40%) than men
(29%) reported having experienced overall sexual harassment. How-
ever, more service men (46%) than service women (27%), as well as
more clerical men (46%) than clerical women (31%), reported having
experienced overall sexual harassment. There were no gender differen-
ces among student workers. When consequences of overall incivility
and sexual harassment were examined separately, after controlling for
race, age, and occupation, both men and women who experienced
overall incivility and sexual harassment had worse mental health (i.e.,
depression, anxiety, and hostility) than those who did not experience
incivility or sexual harassment. The association with drinking outcomes
and prescription drug use was mixed. For women, both incivility and
sexual harassment were related to drinking, but only sexual harass-
ment was related to prescription drug use. For men, both incivility and
sexual harassment were related to heavy episodic drinking and pre-
scription drug use.
Lim and Cortina (2005) investigated the relationships and outcomes
of incivility and sexual harassment in two samples of women (Ns ¼ 833
and 1,425; 88% and 93% of whom reported to be White, respectively)
employed within a large public sector organization. The authors used
the WIS and SEQ to measure the frequency of incivility and sexual har-
assment during the past 5 years, respectively. They combined unwanted
sexual attention and sexual coercion items into a sexualized harassment
composite. The findings showed that incivility and sexual harassment
co-occurred. That is, in both samples, gender harassment was strongly
related to both incivility and sexualized harassment. There was also a
moderate relationship between incivility and sexualized harassment,
even after controlling for the correlation between incivility and gender
harassment. Almost all women who experienced gender or sexualized
harassment also experienced incivility, but not vice versa. In fact,
women rarely experienced sexual harassment in isolation (only 1%–3%
did). In addition, confirmatory factor analyses indicated that gender har-
assment linked incivility to sexualized harassment.
Moreover, Lim and Cortina (2005) found an incremental worsening
of both job outcomes and psychological/health outcomes even after
controlling for behavior frequency, with women who experienced inci-
vility, gender harassment, and sexualized harassment having the worst
outcomes, followed by women who experienced both incivility and
gender harassment. Even women who experienced incivility alone had
significantly worse outcomes than women who never experienced inci-
vility, gender harassment, or sexualized harassment.
Incivility spirals are often associated with sexual harassment. Such
spirals may also trigger further victimization when victims complain
CONCLUSIONS
The existing literature reviewed in this chapter suggests that per-
sonal slights lead to incivility spirals. Moreover, incivility is a type of
interpersonal discrimination (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002),
because it is subtle and easily masked (covert) and is often targeted at
women and racial/ethnic minorities. Unfortunately, incivility becomes
a systemic organization problem that is often ignored and unpunished
by organizations compared to formal (overt) discrimination of the past
that is protected by law (Code of Federal Regulations, 2000). According
to Dipboye and Coletta (2005), ‘‘the subtlety and complexity of [inter-
personal] discrimination in today’s workplace makes it even more per-
nicious in some respects than the simple and easily identifiable
discrimination of the past’’ (p. 427). Moreover, a growing body of em-
pirical evidence shows that incivility has negative consequences on
individuals and organizations. Thus, incivility should be subject to the
same regulations and policies as formal types of discrimination. In
addition, incivility co-occurs with sexual and racial/ethnic harassment.
Hence, multiple forms of interpersonal mistreatment need to be
addressed simultaneously rather than in isolation, as is typically the
case. As Lim and Cortina (2005) put it, ‘‘a concerted effort at eliminat-
ing all elements of a hostile work environment might be more effective
and efficient’’ (p. 494).
Gender harassment has been identified as an important link between
general incivility and sexualized harassment (i.e., unwanted sexual
attention and sexual coercion; Lim & Cortina, 2005). Thus, gender
should be actively investigated when assessing generalized incivility in
order to detect gendered incivility, gendered bullying, and the interface
between gender with other systems of inequality, such as race/ethnic-
ity and sexual orientation. In addition, same-sex sexual harassment is a
common occurrence, suggesting a need to focus on gender stereotyping
rather than on sexualized harassment, which is more symptomatic of
heterosexual sexual conflict between men and women. In fact, legal
scholars have suggested that the term sexual harassment should be re-
conceptualized as gender-norm harassment to accommodate the plural-
ity of forms that sexual harassment now takes (Epstein, 1998; Franke,
1997; Schultz, 1998). Additional research and legal scholarship describ-
ing the link between gender stereotyping and discrimination are
needed in order to make clear to policy makers the need to make
gender-norm harassment, both overt and covert, illegal.
REFERENCES
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of
incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determi-
nants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injus-
tice and the Type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281–296.
Bastian, L. D., Lancaster, A. R., & Reyst, H. E. (1996). Department of Defense
1995 sexual harassment survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data
Center.
Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of
men? Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 20, 527–547.
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for
minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426–436.
Bernstein, A. (1997). Treating sexual harassment with respect. Harvard Law
Review, 111, 445–527.
Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic
review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and
Human Behavior, 22, 33–59.
Buchanan, N. T. (2005). The nexus of race and gender domination: The racial-
ized sexual harassment of African American women. In P. Morgan & J.
Gruber (Eds.), In the company of men: Re-discovering the links between sexual
harassment and male domination (pp. 294–320). Boston: Northeastern Univer-
sity Press.
Buchanan, N. T., & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the
lives of African American women. Women & Therapy, 25, 107–124.
Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 29, §1604.11 (2000).
Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (2002). Contextualizing Latina
experiences of sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 295–311.
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events
following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 8, 247–265.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivil-
ity in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 6, 64–80.
Deitch, E., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003).
Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrim-
ination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56, 1299–1324.
DeSouza, E., & Solberg, J. (2003). Incidence and dimensions of sexual harass-
ment across cultures. In M. Paludi & C. A. Paludi, Jr. (Eds.), Academic and
workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management,
and legal perspectives (pp. 3–30). Westport, CT: Praeger.
DeSouza, E., & Solberg, J. (2004). Women’s and men’s reactions to man-to-man
sexual harassment: Does the sexual orientation of the victim matter? Sex
Roles, 50, 623–639.
DeSouza, E. R., Solberg, J., & Cerqueira, E. (2007). A cross-cultural perspective
on judgments of woman-to-woman sexual harassment: Does sexual orien-
tation matter? Sex Roles, 56, 457–471.
Dipboye, R. L., & Coletta, A. (2005). The dilemmas of workplace discrimina-
tion. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Coletta (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psy-
chological and organizational bases (pp. 425–462). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
DuBois, C.L.Z., Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., & Kustis, G. A. (1998). An empirical
examination of same- and other-gender sexual harassment in the work-
place. Sex Roles, 9, 731–749.
Employment Equal Opportunity Commission (2007a, May 17). Sexual harass-
ment. Retrieved on November 2, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/
sexual_harassment.html.
Employment Equal Opportunity Commission (2007b, January 31). Sexual harass-
ment charges: FY 1997–FY 2006. Washington, DC. Retrieved on November
2, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/harass.html.
Epstein, L. B. (1998). What is a gender norm and why should we care? Imple-
menting a new theory in sexual harassment law. Stanford Law Review, 51, 161.
Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2007).
Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 195–206.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y.,
Ormerod, M., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of
sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 32, 152–175.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Magley, V. J. (1997). But was it really sexual har-
assment? Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace
victimization of women. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 5–28). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Franke, K. M. (1997). What’s wrong with sexual harassment? Stanford Law
Review, 49, 691–772.
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., &
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model
of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 71, 309–328.
Haslett, B. B., & Lipman, S. (1997). Micro-inequalities: Up close and personal.
In N. V. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for
change (pp. 34–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hearn, J., & Parkin, W. (2001). Gender sexuality and violence in organizations. Lon-
don: Sage.
Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and
interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual
applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815–825.
Hepworth, W., & Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences and
charismatic leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 9, 176–185.
Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health,
but all bullying behaviors are not necessarily equally damaging. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 367–387.
Jennifer, D., Cowie, H., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). Perceptions and experience of
workplace bullying in five different working populations. Aggressive Behav-
ior, 29, 489–496.
Krieger, N., Waterman, P. D., Hartman, C., Bates, L. M., Stoddard, A., Quinn,
M. M., Sorensen, G., & Barbeau, E. M. (2006). Social hazards on the job:
Workplace abuse, sexual harassment, and racial discrimination—A study
of Black, Latino, and White low-income women and men workers in the
United States. International Journal of Health Services, 36, 51–85.
Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual
workplace aggression and victims’ overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 155–169.
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace:
The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483–496.
Lipari, R. N., & Lancaster, A. R. (2003). Armed forces 2002: Sexual harassment sur-
vey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
Mansfield, P. K., Koch, P. B., Henderson, J., & Vicary, J. R. (1991). The job cli-
mate for women in traditionally male blue-collar occupations. Sex Roles,
25, 63–79.
Martindale, M. (1991). Sexual harassment in the military: 1988. Sociological Prac-
tice Review, 2, 200–216.
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility to-
ward women: Implications for employee’s well-being. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 9, 107–122.
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vi-
carious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1254–1269.
Murrell, A. J. (1996). Sexual harassment and women of color: Issues, challenges,
and future directions. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the
workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 51–65). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace
aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and pre-
ferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391–419.
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attack-
ing workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137.
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). Workplace incivility.
In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive work behavior: Investiga-
tion of actors and targets (pp. 177–200). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Pearson, C. M., Anderson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout
convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387–
1419.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2002). Rude awakening: Detecting and curtailing
workplace incivility. London, Ontario, Canada: Richard Ivey School of Busi-
ness, University of Western Ontario.
Pryor, J. B., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2003). Sexual harassment research in the United
States. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and prac-
tice (pp. 79–100). London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual
harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 48, 387–400.
Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty, J. A., Fendrich, M.,
Drum, M. L., & Johnson, T. P. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized
workplace abuse among university employees: Prevalence and mental
health correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 358–363.
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of
gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 914–922.
Rowe, M. (1990). Barriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimination to
maintain unequal opportunity. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 3,
153–163.
Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). An examination of
the nature and correlates of ethnic harassment experiences in multiple con-
texts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 3–12.
Schultz, V. (1998). Reconceptualizing sexual harassment. The Yale Law Journal,
107, 1683–1805.
Stockdale, M. S., Visio, M., & Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men:
Evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sexual discrimina-
tion. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 5, 630–664.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A.M.B.,
Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial micro-aggressions in everyday
life. American Psychologist, 62, 271–286.
Texeira, M. T. (2002). ‘‘Who protects and serves me?’’ A case study of sexual
harassment of African American women in one U.S. law enforcement
agency. Gender & Society, 16, 524–545.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal work-
place: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal gov-
ernment: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal gov-
ernment: Trends, progress, continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Vickers, M. H. (2006). Writing what’s relevant: Workplace incivility in public
administration—A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Administrative Theory & Praxis,
28, 69–88.
Waldo, C. R., Berdahl, J. L., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1998). Are men sexually har-
assed? If so, by whom? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59–79.
Ward, J., & Winstanley, D. (2003). The absent presence: Negative space within
discourse and the construction of minority sexual identity in the work-
place. Human Relations, 56, 1255–1280.
Welsh, S., Carr, J., MacQuarrie, B., & Huntley, A. (2006). ‘I’m not thinking of it
as sexual harassment’: Understanding harassment across race and citizen-
ship. Gender & Society, 20, 87–107.
Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents
and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology,
60, 127–162.
Yoder, J. D., & Aniakudo, P. (1995). The responses of African American women
firefighters to gender harassment at work. Sex Roles, 32, 125–137.
NUMERICAL DOMINANCE
Survey research consistently confirms a positive correlation
between numerical dominance and sexual harassment. In domains
where the sex ratio is skewed (i.e., the proportion of men greatly
exceeds that of women), sexual harassment is likely to be prevalent
(Gruber, 1998; Gutek, 1985; Gutek & Morasch, 1982). In fact, compara-
tive analyses show that male predominance and sexual harassment
correlate across domains as well as within them. A complication
arises, however, because numerical dominance does not always (or
necessarily) predict the existence of a work domain male culture.
Nevertheless, numerical dominance has often been used as a proxy
for normative dominance.
Proportionality
Drawing upon social role theory, Gutek and Morasch (1982) were
the first to theorize the connection between sex ratio skew and sexual
harassment prevalence. They argued that in environments where the
sex ratio is skewed, cultural gender roles ‘‘spill over’’ into the work-
place. While this occurs regardless of which sex predominates, sexual
harassment is especially problematic when men are a significant major-
ity. In domains where sex role spillover occurs, the climate becomes
sexually charged and the treatment of women as daughters, wives,
girlfriends, and mothers rather than as coworkers and supervisors is
normalized. In coal mining, for example, where less than 7% of the
workers are female, women are often typecast as flirts, tomboys, or
ladies and then treated as such by their male coworkers (Yount, 1991).
Similarly, in corporate offices, executive secretaries are hired and pro-
moted on the basis of their abilities to perform as surrogate wives
(Pringle, 1989) and are often conspicuously objectified as status-bearing
possessions (Messerschmidt, 1993). Bond and her colleagues (2004)
argued that job satisfaction for both women and men varied substan-
tially between female- and male-dominated occupations because of cul-
tural gender differences. Specifically, they hypothesized that workers’
higher satisfaction in female-dominated jobs was the product of work-
place norms that encouraged supportive and nurturing relationships,
which contrasted with male-dominated jobs where emotional distance
was typical.
NORMATIVE DOMINANCE
Applications of sex ratio, spillover, sexualization, contact, and criti-
cal mass theories make the connection between male predominance
and sexual harassment prevalence clear but not complete. There are at
least two common situations that illustrate the limitations of these theo-
ries. First is the sexual harassment of women by men in domains
where men do not predominate. Second is the sexual harassment of
men by other men.
With regard to the first situation, survey results indicate that even
when the sex ratio is fairly even the sexual harassment of women is
Traditionality
Attitudinal and perceptional studies of psychologists have made sig-
nificant progress toward linking normative male dominance to sexual
harassment prevalence. In general terms, traditionality (i.e., the degree
to which one believes that gender differences are ‘‘natural’’) normalizes
the sexual, social, and economic subordination of women. Pryor and
colleagues, for example, have found a relationship between men’s pro-
pensity to sexually harass women and their attitudes. In particular,
high LSH (likelihood to sexually harass) men hold adversarial sexual
beliefs, find it difficult to assume the perspectives of others, and
endorse traditional sex-role stereotypes (Pryor & Stoller, 1994; Pryor,
Giedd, & Williams, 1995). Also, these men score high on scales of anti-
femininity, toughness, dominance, and authoritarianism. Fitzgerald and
Shullman (1985) note a similar link between traditional attitudes about
gender roles among women and their resistance in labeling unwanted
Gender Regime
Traditionality theory cannot account for the harassment of men by
other men, especially when the perpetrator and his target are both het-
erosexual. Gender performance theory, more commonly referred to as
‘‘doing gender’’ theory, offers an explanation. Ethnomethodologists
Those who are uninitiated to the masculine order are inducted through
group performances of ritualized sexual aggression. In military aca-
demies, the sexualized hazing of cadets is a long-standing tradition. A
prerequisite for induction into a college fraternity is the ability to rise
above the humiliation of being demeaned as homosexuals or subordi-
nated as women.
It is not just the integration of women that destabilizes the hierarchy
of men. Men who stand against the gender regime also threaten the
stability of the masculine hierarchy. Men who choose cooperation over
competition, treat women as equals, or who refuse to use force are gen-
der rebels who risk becoming targets of what Stockdale (2005) terms
‘‘rejection-based’’ sexual harassment. In much the same way as women
who ‘‘invade’’ male turf become targets of hostility and derision, so
too nonconforming men are subject to verbal and physical aggression
and excluded from routine male-bonding experiences.
Given the fact that only a few men have what it takes to achieve
elite status and the vast majority are either working to prove their mas-
culinity or resisting pressure to do so, it makes sense that the majority
of men targeted for sexual harassment are harassed by heterosexual
men and that the most common types of harassment they experience
are sexualized acts of hostility and intimidation. Ironically, then,
while the masculine regime is stabilized by homosocial rituals, it is de-
stabilized by homosexuality. As a result, highly normative domains
strongly prohibit homosexuality. For example, in the U.S. Armed
Forces, homosexual behavior is a crime subject to court martial. When
gays and lesbians challenged that policy by publicly owning their sex-
ual orientations, the Clinton Administration attempted to restore order
with the institution of ‘‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’’ policies. Yet, sexual har-
assment has become a common method for the informal sanction of
homosexual behavior. Interestingly, false ‘‘outing,’’ or just the threat
of it is a common retaliation against heterosexual women who resist or
complain about unwanted sexual attention, as doing so triggers formal
mechanisms of social control (Embser-Herbert, 2005).
Proposal 1
The fact that sex ratios occur within both social and psychological
contexts needs greater consideration. In operationalizing this variable,
there are three dimensions that researchers should include: the objective
count of women and men (the number of employees, participants, or
members listed in formal documents); the perception that work domain
members have of the numbers (the degree to which those populating a
domain sense men or women predominate); and changes in both the
actual number of men and the perceptions of the numbers. With regard
to the second aspect, research suggests that in situations of stress major-
ity group members are apt to inflate their estimates of the number of mi-
nority-status members who have entered their domains. Also, as we
discussed earlier, a notable shift in numbers of women, even when they
already constitute a sizable minority, may create an outbreak of
misogyny. Therefore, an evaluation of male dominance should include a
sex ratio history of the domain under investigation.
Proposal 2
The extent to which leadership can control male dominance impacts
the effectiveness of policies preventing sexual harassment. This is likely
to be problematic when employees work in domains that are physically
isolated from those where leadership resides. A fire station, a police
station, and a military barracks are prime examples of this type of sep-
aration. For example, firefighters may perceive the city government,
chief’s office, or even the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
director as far removed from their daily work lives and therefore igno-
rant of their reality (Baignet, 2005). They may resent and therefore
ignore policies that mandate attitudinal or behavioral change.
In isolated settings such as these, a physical structure encompasses a
social setting and blurs the distinctions between occupation and organi-
zation. In some areas within an organization there are distinct occupa-
tional niches where employees with similar job titles are functionally
and spatially segregated from the rest of the organization. These simi-
larities promote group identification and solidarity that may be
enhanced further by similarity in ascribed characteristics (e.g., gender,
race, age). The physical separation heightens the symbolic separateness
of the work group. For example, Corroto’s (2005) field study shows
that a masculinist enclave can exist within an otherwise gender-diverse
setting (a university) where men in a traditionally male occupation
(architecture) claim physical space (studios) as male territory and use
these areas to enact normatively male ritual activities (e.g., displaying
sexual graffiti). From our experiences as sexual harassment consultants,
a map of the work domain that includes the flow or patterns of move-
ment of women and men within it not only creates a more vivid por-
trayal of social contact between the sexes but also delineates the
boundaries (physical and/or symbolic) that may heighten sexual har-
assment targets’ sense of entrapment.
Proposal 3
When male dominance is normalized through organized rather than
individual processes, the impact of masculine norms on work domains
is increased substantially. The spillover effect may be heightened con-
siderably when hiring or promotion criteria or membership require-
ments to professional associations or unions codify the conflation of
gender and occupational roles. For example, military and paramilitary
physical fitness requirements that emphasize upper body strength nor-
malize masculinity as an occupational requirement. Similarly, uniform
requirements like those of the Hooter’s restaurant (i.e., tight, low-cut
T-shirts and miniskirts) institutionalize a sexually charged restaurant
climate and thereby normalize unwanted sexual attention as an accept-
able occupational hazard.
A key feature of the role of extra-organizational norms among
groups of people is an occupational culture. What has not received
research attention is an analysis of the factors that heighten tensions
between organizational and occupational loyalty and identity. For
male-dominated occupations this may be a primary source of male re-
sistance to organizational policies and directives against sexual harass-
ment as men begin their careers. For a number of jobs there is an
extended socialization process that controls entry into an occupation
and guides behavior during employment. There may be a formal train-
ing process wherein a candidate spends an extended period of time as
a student or trainee. The training or socialization may occur in a setting
that is physically, psychologically, and gender separate. Police academ-
ies and military boot camps are notable examples. The spillover of this
socialization into formal work domains is accentuated by unique global
occupational identities that link workers to groups or associations outside
the work site. Professional associations, fraternal organizations, and
unions not only help to sustain occupational identities at work but they
also create global allegiances that extend far beyond the work site. Group
solidarity is further enhanced through informal rituals and practices that
Proposal 4
Collective occupational identities and personality characteristics and
attitudes coincide. In other words, the behavior and attitudes men have
about gender and sexuality are shaped not only by their training, ini-
tiations, and interpersonal experiences at work, but also by the social-
ization experiences that determine the kinds of work they do and how
they do it. There is a self-selection process whereby men with certain
attitudinal or personality characteristics are apt to choose some types
of work over others, the kinds of people they choose to work with, and
their interpersonal relations with coworkers and supervisors.
A key socialization variable is sexual orientation, specifically
homophobia—one of the most popular measures of a tendency to sexu-
ally harass, according to John Pryor’s LSH scale, which correlates sig-
nificantly with a number of negative personality characteristics. To
advance the research on personal characteristics and work roles we
need research on personality types, attitudes, and proclivities that is
group-based, specifically occupation-based. Research on personality types
or attitudes of men in occupations that are numerically male-dominant
would clarify the elements of and extend the meaning of normative
dominance. The problem of male dominance isn’t simply the number
of men; it’s the attitudes and orientations that are shaped and rein-
forced by homophobic and misogynist occupational cultures. For exam-
ple, Kurpius and Lucart (2000) found that undergraduate members of
military groups (e.g., Reserve Officers’ Training Corp) had higher
scores on authoritarianism than their peers.
One approach to accomplishing this might be to derive a mean score
for all persons (or a sample of persons) within an occupation using
measures such as the LSH, authoritarianism, anti-femininity, traditional
masculinity, or other scales of this sort. A more ambitious project
would involve charting change or continuity in personality and atti-
tudes of trainees, cadets, students, and the like as they move into the
formal occupational world. Such longitudinal research would provide
a basis for understanding the impact of organizational variables on
Proposal 5
A ‘‘trickle down’’ theory about sexual harassment predominates in
both research and policy. By ‘‘trickle down’’ we mean that within any
hierarchy—social, economic, or organizational—it is assumed that
beliefs and practices among the elites trickle downward, influencing
the thoughts and actions of subordinates (Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Dras-
gow, 1996). Within employment and educational organizations, policy
implementations that embrace this view emphasize the importance of
formal prohibition statements made by leadership. Legally, liability
rests not so much on the type of harassment reported but on an organi-
zation’s administration to respond effectively. The rationale is straight-
forward: If the administration does not take harassment seriously,
neither will its employees. The trickle down model predicts that organ-
izations with male-dominated leadership and/or leadership that toler-
ates sexual harassment and discrimination are more likely to have
sexual harassment problems within the ranks.
However, the trickle down theory cannot easily account for ‘‘contra-
harassment,’’ the harassment of superiors by those of lesser status
(Rospenda et al., 1998). Yet, in reality harassment of teachers by their
students and supervisors by their subordinates is common. As Connell
(2000) notes, within the hierarchy of men harassment is used both to
maintain power and to usurp it. Men at the top harass those at the bot-
tom as a means to exercise their superiority and maintain their elite sta-
tus. In their quest for upward mobility, men of lesser status may harass
their competitors (i.e., men with equal status) as well as those above
them. As Acker (1990) concurs, in the hierarchy of men, women are not
even at the bottom—they are outside it completely. Their attempts to
‘‘break in’’ can precipitate a hostile comradeship among all men.
One of most neglected aspects of sexual harassment research—most
specifically in survey research—is collective resistance by men against
formal policies and programs aimed at reducing harassment. Certainly,
resistance to ‘‘authority’’ is a well-worn feature of masculinity in
American popular culture. From Marlon Brando and James Dean of
the postwar era to Clint Eastwood (Dirty Harry) and Sylvester Stallone
(Rambo) of the 1980s to the rappers of hip-hop today, the image of a
‘‘real man’’ is one who resists the ‘‘system’’ and the incompetence and
weakness (i.e., stereotypic feminine characteristics) it perpetuates. Per-
haps the most glaring problem with the trickle down model of leader-
ship is the fact that policies and programs developed to reduce sexual
harassment may in fact encourage it! This was demonstrated aptly by
Miller’s (1997) field study of male active-duty Army soldiers. Rather
Proposal 6
In addition to the previous factors we’ve discussed, one could pre-
dict the rates at which men sexually harassed their female and male
colleagues not only by these previous factors (physical isolation, mas-
culinist occupational identity, etc.) but also by attitudes toward work
and work processes. Simply put, nasty, alienating work environments
create nasty interpersonal relationships. Of particular interest to us is
how the reaction to alienation by men is along the lines of reaffirming
traditional masculinity, including aggression, substance abuse, and
homophobia. Gender regimes normalize aggression as appropriate for
men and unacceptable among women.
In one of the first cross-national comparisons of sexual harassment
experiences among blue- and white-collar women, Kauppinen and
Gruber (1993) found that American autoworkers had significantly
higher levels of harassment than all other workers. Part of the reason
for this was their significantly higher levels of work alienation or
bureaucratization. Specifically, autoworkers had higher workloads and
less autonomy than American professionals or European workers, and
these were strongly related to poorer social relationships. The impact
of work structure and processes on job-related, psychological, and
health outcomes is a well-studied area within sociology and
Mueller, 1999) that used regression analyses found that low solidarity
or poor congeniality among coworkers was a strong predictor of sexual
harassment. Richman and her colleagues (Richman, Rospenda, Nawyn, &
Flaherty, 1997) found that environments with high levels of generalized
workplace abuse had significant problems with sexual harassment, and
these (in particular, generalized workplace abuse) in turn were signifi-
cant predictors of depression, anxiety, and hostility for both male and
female employees of a university.
There are some important implications of the research on work
structure and organizational climate to male dominance. An impor-
tant reason why male-dominated jobs are dangerous environments
for women is because many of these jobs are highly bureaucratic
(e.g., regimented, routinized, hierarchical) such as factory work or
military or paramilitary jobs. Women who enter these jobs are apt to
be sexually harassed as a result of two tensions: a direct threat to
male power and privilege, or an already existing poor work climate
brought about by alienating work. While the first tension has received
considerable attention, the second needs further development. Specifi-
cally, while bureaucratic structures and processes produce similar
outcomes on job (dissatisfaction, turnover) and psychological out-
comes, the reactions to alienation seem to differ insofar as men seem
more inclined to express their discontent through hostility and stereo-
typing.
CONCLUSION
It is our contention that a fuller understanding of sexual harassment
can be found by a deeper consideration of the various ways that mas-
culinity impacts work domains. To be sure, ‘‘male dominance’’ is multi-
faceted. A central focus of this study is the complex interrelationships
between gendered numbers and norms, or ‘‘double dominance.’’ The
impact of male dominance in this regard has been lost in the shuffle of
‘‘organizational climate’’ theory and research.
Our critique of the literature and our proposals for further study are
fueled by an ecological approach to human interactions. We begin with
two assumptions: Work domains provide rich settings for ‘‘doing gen-
der’’; and the content of these gender performances are highly situa-
tional and impacted by the work context and by a variety of factors
outside the domain. If a work domain is the ‘‘stage’’ for gendered per-
formances, then we need to understand its unique structural and phys-
ical aspects because it matters whether the stage is in the middle of the
organization or at its bottom (Proposal 5) or whether or not it is sepa-
rate or unified (Proposal 2). It has long been understood that numbers,
in particular ratios of women and men, shape interactions in work
domains. What we have tried to do is provide a normative context to
the numbers by focusing on factors that facilitate (or inhabit) the influ-
ence of traditional masculinity on work roles.
APPENDIX: PROPOSALS
NOTES
1. Male dominance varies across social institutions, employment sectors,
organizations, and work groups; thus, for ease of presentation, the term ‘‘do-
main’’ will be used to reference all of these.
2. By ‘‘gender equity’’ we mean that the proportions of women employed in
these settings are 40% to 60%. However, because pay inequities and differences
in status persist, gender parity remains an elusive goal.
REFERENCES
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.
Gender & Society, 2, 139–158.
Angel, M. (1991). Sexual harassment by judges. University of Miami Law Review,
45, 817–841.
Baignet, D. (2005). Fitting in: The conflation of firefighting, male domination,
and harassment. In J. Gruber & P. Morgan (Eds.), In the company of men:
Male dominance and sexual harassment (pp. 45–64). Boston: Northeastern Uni-
versity Press.
Baker, C. (2005). Blue collar feminism: The link between male dominance and
sexual harassment. In J. Gruber & P. Morgan (Eds.), In the company of men:
Male dominance and sexual harassment (pp. 243–270). Boston: Northeastern
University Press.
Bastian, L., Lancaster, A., & Reyst, H. (1996). The Department of Defense 1995 sex-
ual harassment survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation & freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bond, M., Punnett, L., Pyle, J., Cazeca, D., & Cooperman, M. (2004). Gendered
work conditions, health and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 9, 28–45.
the company of men: Male dominance and sexual harassment (pp. 117–142). Bos-
ton: Northeastern University Press.
Stockdale, M., Wood, M., & Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men:
Evidence for a broader theory of sex harassment and sex discrimination.
Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 630–664.
Texteira, M. (2002). Who protects and serves me? Gender & Society, 16, 524–545.
Timmerman, M. (1990). Werkrelaties tussen vrouwen en mannen ongewenste intimi-
teiten in arbeidssituaties. Amsterdam: Sua.
Titunik, R. (2000). The first wave: Gender integration and military culture.
Armed Forces & Society, 26, 229–257.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal gov-
ernment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal gov-
ernment: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal work-
place: Trends, progress & continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Violence against women in the military (2001, August 18). USA Today, p. 14.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.
Wonders, N. (1997). Politics of the policy process. In B. Sandler and R. Shoop
(Eds.), Sexual harassment on campus. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Yoder, J., & Aniakudo, P. (1997). Outsider within the firehouse. Gender & Soci-
ety, 11, 324–341.
Yount, K. (1991). Ladies, flirts and tomboys. Journal of Contemporary Ethnogra-
phy, 19, 396–422.
Yount, K. (2005). Sexualization of work roles among men miners: Structural
and gender-based origins of ‘‘harazzment.’’ In J. Gruber & P. Morgan
(Eds.), In the company of men: Male dominance and sexual harassment (pp. 65–
91). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
When people say that they want to focus only on gender, I wonder which
aspect of myself I should leave at home when I go in to work. Should I leave
home race today? Or should I leave home my gender?
(Told to the author)
Demographers predict that by 2050 half or nearly half of the popula-
tion will be of color (Armas, 2007). In some states people of color are
already the majority or near majority of the population. This boost in
diversity is the result of a few factors, including: the predicted small
decline in the non-Hispanic white population, continued large
increases in the Hispanic and Asian populations, and the continued
growth of the Black population. Add to these factors the increases in
populations of immigrant of color and one can predict the characteris-
tics of the labor force in the future. The enlargement of a multicultural
population will mean a workforce that is more culturally diversified.
The workplace has continued to become more diverse in terms of
gender over the years. There have been steady increases in women
in the United States who are employed outside of the home. Over 60%
of women who are 16 and older are members of the workforce (Bureau
of Statistics, 2004).
Race and ethnicity are not current predictors of whether or not
women are working outside of the home. According to the Bureau of
Statistics (2004), 62% of Black women, 59% of Asian women, 59% of
European-American women, and 58% of Latina women are in the
workforce. While race/ethnicity may not strongly predict whether or
not a woman is employed outside of the home, it can shape what she
encounters while there. Race/ethnicity can influence the type of
employment (Essed, 1991), stereotypes held about her abilities (St. Jean &
Feagin, 1998), and her salary (Bureau of Statistics, 2004). Collins (2000)
contends that the experiences of women cannot be investigated in
terms of gender only. Collins’s point is well taken in terms of salaries.
Although women typically make less money than men, the amount
varies across ethnicities. Thus a complete analysis of working women’s
experiences must consider identities in addition to gender. Looking at
gender only when considering salaries would not take into account the
milieu in which women operate. Feminists of color assert that all expe-
riences should be analyzed using a framework that considers interlock-
ing systems of oppression. This would include considering gender,
race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Although the exploration
of how the intersection between gender and all identities is important
to consider, the focus of this chapter will be on the gender–race/
ethnicity intersection. Collins’s analysis suggests that it is important to
look at the unique experiences of women of color.
Although great strides have been made, women continue to experi-
ence barriers to their success based on their sex. These obstacles are
exhibited in terms of prejudice (negative attitudes about women’s abil-
ities); discrimination (treating women differently because of their sex);
and stereotyping (beliefs about women’s talents and abilities). The
experiences of men and women of color with work and the workplace
can be affected by race and ethnicity (St. Jean & Feagin, 1998). The
obstacles based on sex can take unique forms for women of color (e.g.,
racialized sexual harassment) (Buchanan, 2005). It is important that we
examine how the confluence of race and gender can influence the work
lives of women of color.
In this chapter we will first look at definitions of sexism and racism
and new definitions that incorporate simultaneously experienced gen-
der and race discrimination. We will then look at specific ways women
of color experience workplace discrimination. Finally, we will discuss
frameworks for combating gender racism in the workplace.
SEX DISCRIMINATION
Glick and Fiske (1996, 2001) have delineated the contours of sexism
in their work on ambivalent sexism. According to their work, attitudes
toward women are not necessarily hostile; however, these attitudes still
serve to undermine women and maintain subservient roles. They
describe two forms of sexism: hostile sexism and benevolent sexism.
Hostile sexism is based on a dislike of or an antagonism toward
women. Women are viewed as trying to control men. Women may be
seen as using their sex and/or sexuality to get ahead. This is the form
of sexism that most people would define as sexism. Conversely, with
benevolent sexism there is no overt hatred of women. In fact, women
may be revered. They are perceived as being in need of help and pro-
tection. Women are seen as having a particular ‘‘place’’ in society.
Benevolent sexism is defined as a set of interrelated attitudes toward
women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and
in restricted roles but are subjectively positive in feeling and tone (for
the perceiver) and tend to elicit behaviors typically categorized as pro-
social (i.e., helping) or intimacy-seeking (i.e., self-disclosure) (Glick and
Fiske, 1996, p. 491).
The work of Glick and Fiske (1996, 2001) is important in that it
makes clear critical features of sexism. First, their work has shown the
multidimensional nature of sexist thought. Second, sexism may not
appear as blatant hostility, in some cases it is behavior that may appear
to be supportive of women. Third, sexist beliefs are not harmless in
that they are associated with unequal treatment.
Benokaraitis (1997) also conceptualizes sexism as a multidimensional
construct. Sex discrimination is defined as ‘‘unequal and harmful treat-
ment of people because of their sex (i.e., biological differences between
males and females, which include hormones, chromosomes, and ana-
tomical characteristics)’’ (p. 7). She further posits that sex discrimina-
tion comes in three general manifestations: blatant sex discrimination,
subtle sex discrimination, and covert sex discrimination. Blatant sex
discrimination is defined as ‘‘unequal and harmful treatment of women
that is intentional, quite visible, and can be easily documented’’ (p. 7).
Some examples of blatant sexism cited are sexual harassment, sexist
language and jokes, gendered physical violence (including rape and
wife abuse), and unfair treatment in societal institutions (e.g., the fam-
ily, employment, education, politics) (Benokaraitis). Subtle sex discrimi-
nation is defined as ‘‘unequal and harmful treatment of women that is
typically less visible and obvious than blatant sex discrimination.’’ It
is behavior that is frequently not seen as sexism or perceived at all. This
behavior is frequently not seen because it has become part of the soci-
etal norm. It has been normalized; thus it is not viewed as damaging.
When women complain about this form of sexism they are frequently
RACE DISCRIMINATION
There is a long history of research on racism and prejudice (e.g., All-
port, 1958; Brewer, 1979; McConahay, 1986; Jones, 1997; Dovidio, 2001;
Swim & Stangor, 1998). Current research findings point to the multidi-
mensional nature of racial discrimination. As the societal context has
changed, the nature of racial prejudice and discrimination has changed
with it. As with sexism, the forms that race discrimination takes can be
overt and hostile or subtle and seemingly not related to the social cate-
gory (in this case, race). These concepts of racism were initially focused
on attitudes and behaviors toward Black Americans but have now been
broadened to include other groups of color.
Early research on race discrimination concentrated on what is now
called ‘‘old-fashioned racism.’’ Old-fashioned racism is a form of rac-
ism where people support derogatory statements about the abilities or
intelligence of Blacks and other people of color or support obviously
racist social policies (e.g., racially segregated schools). Symbolic rac-
ism/modern racism is a less overt form of race discrimination. Racism
is not expressed as overt hostility toward Blacks and other groups of
color. In this form of racism individuals are not ‘‘anti-Black.’’ They do
not say that Black people should be denied opportunities because they
are Black and innately inferior. Instead Black people and other under-
represented groups are seen as not adhering to important social Ameri-
can values such as hard work, being promoted on the basis of merit,
and so on. They (Black people) want special treatment. This form of
discrimination and prejudice is expressed in terms of endorsing state-
ments like ‘‘Blacks are pushing too hard’’ and ‘‘Over the years blacks
have gotten more than they deserve’’ (McConahay, 1986). It is
associated with being against public policies like busing for school inte-
gration.
Analyses of discrimination have continued to evolve to explain
seeming inconsistencies between attitudes and behavior. Dovidio
(2001) and Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) posit aversive racism as a form
of racism that they view as most typical of well-educated liberal Whites
in the United States. (It is important to note that these are people who
women of color are likely to encounter in the workforce as colleagues
and employers.) They characterize aversive racism as a phenomenon
that explains how many Whites who consciously, explicitly, and sin-
cerely support egalitarian principles and perceive themselves to be
nonprejudiced also harbor negative feelings and beliefs about Blacks
and other historically disadvantaged groups. These unconscious nega-
tive feelings and beliefs develop as a consequence of normal, almost
unavoidable and frequently functional, cognitive, motivational, and
social cultural processes (Dovidio & Gaertner, p. 618).
The processes that are a part of this conceptualization of discrimina-
tion are general social psychological processes. The processes include
cognitive (the seemingly natural process of placing people in categories
that also activates racial bias and stereotypes), motivational (the need
for individual and group power, status and control), and sociocultural
(viewing these behaviors and thoughts as normal and natural and as a
result adopting behaviors that perpetuate cultural stereotypes and
social structures that maintain the status quo). Context affects whether
or not discriminatory behaviors will be expressed. Discriminatory
behavior will only be expressed in situations where ‘‘bias is not
obvious or can be rationalized on the basis of some factor other than
race’’ (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000, p. 315).
all women. In 2004 median incomes by race and group were as fol-
lows: White men $45,542; White women $32,486; Black men $31,305;
Black women $27,730; Hispanic men $26,679; Hispanic women $23,444;
Asian men $45,870; and Asian women $35,975. The median income for
Asian women was more than that for all women and more than the
income of Black and Hispanic men. Thus all women are not equally
affected by the wage gap.
MENTORING
Having a mentor is an important part of career development. Women
of color frequently report not having mentors and being excluded from
formal and informal networks at work. This appears to be the case in
different fields. ABA Commission on Women (2006) conducted a study
in an attempt to understand the high attrition rate of women of color
lawyers in private law firms. Women of color lawyers in private firms
report having mentors; however, although they had mentors, having a
mentor did not appear to work for them as it did for White men. Tradi-
tionally, having a mentor increases access to important assignments,
opportunities for advancement, and incorporation into the life of the or-
ganization. Even with mentors the women of color were still excluded
from the internal networks within the firm. Having a mentor also did
not increase the likelihood that they would have more contact with cli-
ents or get work assignments that would allow them to earn more bill-
able hours. Numbers of billable hours is important because they
determine who becomes a partner in a law firm. Women of color associ-
ates reported that the types of assignments that they had appeared to be
tied their race and gender. They reported that contact with clients
occurred only when their race or gender was beneficial to the firm. Dur-
ing these meetings their presence was more like ‘‘window dressing’’ to
put the client at ease, and they did not play a substantive role.
In a study of resilience and resistance strategies of women of color
faculty, Thomas and Hollenshead (2001) found that women of color at
their academic institution were less likely to have mentors than were
White women, White men, and men of color. Women of color’s men-
tors were more frequently individuals who were not located in their
campus units or departments or their academic institutions. They were
more likely to use nontraditional forms of mentoring structures.
Instead of having one individual who was older and more experienced,
women of color used groups of peers. Women of color also used the
ethnic minority sections of their professional organizations to find indi-
viduals who could assist them with a specific issue.
Although not focusing on the experiences of women of color, Kami-
niski (2004) describes how mentoring and social networks can work to
promote career development in academia. The mentor of a junior male
faculty member who came to her campus the same year that she did
received protection from his mentor. His mentor interceded to prevent
him from having to work on campus and departmental committees. If
the faculty member was asked, his mentor told the department head
that the person needed time to work on his research so he should be
excused. In contrast, Kaminiski was assigned to work on the executive
committee, which is the departmental committee that required the
most work. In addition to this, the junior faculty’s mentor taught one
of his courses for him. These things gave him more time to do his
work and focus on receiving tenure. In academia receiving tenure and
getting promoted are essential parts of career development.
Kaminiski (2004) also describes another exclusionary practice. Male
faculty members went to lunch together; women were never invited to
attend. This is another example of exclusion from internal networks.
When asked about this faculty would say that they are friends or that
they were discussing things that women would not be interested in.
This is an example of rationalizing the practice by using reasons other
than race and gender. It should be noted that these networks and infor-
mal gatherings serve multiple functions. First, they make a person feel
like they are part of the fabric of the work group. Women of color in
academia and other predominately White workplaces frequently
describe feelings of alienation and isolation (Myers, 2002; St. Jean &
Feagin, 1998). These informal gatherings set up relationships that can
lead to working on projects. In addition, during informal meetings in-
formation about work is passed on (e.g., unwritten rules).
All of these point to subtle forms of sexism, benevolent sexism,
and gendered racism. These examples of practices that appear not
to be linked to race or gender nevertheless affect women’s career
trajectories.
4. Feeling that they are judged by different standards and having to prove
oneself over and over again (Myers, 2004; St. Jean & Feagin, 1998).
5. Feeling that they are under constant observation.
6. Not being made aware of the unwritten rules in their organization
(Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001).
REFERENCES
AAUW (2007). Behind the Pay Gap.
ABA Commission on Women in the Profession (2006). Visible invisibility:
Women of color in law firms. Retrieved on October 1, 2007.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Armas, G. C. (2007). Census bureau predicts diverse U.S. future. In P. S. Roth-
enberg (Ed.), Race, class and gender in the United States (pp. 203–205). New
York: Worth.
Benokaraitis, N. V. (1997). Sex discrimination in the 21st century. In N. V.
Benokaraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism (pp. 5–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cog-
nitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.
Buchanan, N. T. (2005). The nexus of race and gender domination racialized
sexual harassment of African American women. In J. E. Gruber and P.
Morgen (Ed.), In the company of men: Male dominance and sexual harassment
(pp. 294–320). Boston, MA: Northeastern University.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Gender, black feminism and black political economy.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568, 41–43.
It was a routine request, ‘‘May I see you after work for an adjustment?’’
Sure, this was a patient she had treated for 6 years and also treated his
family and several friends—a great patient and an excellent ambassador
for the office.
After the adjustment, they walked out of the treating room into the
reception area. He stood in front of the exit door and she sat on the sec-
ond step of the stairs a few feet away. Suddenly, he began to move
toward her, she extended her hands to stop him. He grabbed her hands.
In an instant, her world was upside down, laid out on the stairs with
him straddling her hips, hands pinned above her head. She had to listen
while he told her how much he wanted her and how long he had
wanted her. Calmly, she tried to explain to him how such an affair was
against her moral, professional, and social standards, as well as the trou-
ble she would get into. He would hear none of it as he replied, ‘‘Trust
me, I won’t tell.’’
1. She lived in a small town and these were her patients, friends, and
colleagues—socially and professionally;
2. His mother taught at her children’s school;
3. He was 20 years old and she was in her thirties;
4. The regulatory college has a zero tolerance policy against sexual abuse
and does not care about the situation, only the letter of the law;
5. She is the doctor, with the power and authority, how could she let this
happen;
6. Her reputation could be ruined and livelihood destroyed.
He left that night, understanding her point of view; yet, terrified, embar-
rassed, and scared, she said nothing for years. As a result of stress and
panic attacks brought on by this encounter, she has left practice.
From my research, I have found sexual harassment of female doctors
is the norm not the exception. Harassment will continue and even esca-
late if ignored. Certain men will treat a professional as a woman first
and a doctor second. The regulatory bodies and professional associa-
tions believe this to be the doctor’s responsibility and fault. Social
standards and perceptions of health care professionals are changing
and the respect and awe once experienced for doctors has diminished
to the point of a hired consultant.
With more women entering the male-dominated health care fields,
rules, regulations, and attitudes must change and support systems be
developed and instituted to deal with this silent epidemic.
Two-thirds of women in the United States over age 20 are in the paid
workforce—when women in the armed forces are included, the propor-
tion of women who work reaches 70% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).
Thus, a large number of women spend a significant amount of their
waking hours at work (Sayer, 2005) and, not surprisingly, the work-
place is where many women encounter persons with whom they de-
velop important relationships. Researchers increasingly understand
that relationships are at the center of organizational life and it is
through them that much of the work gets done (Blatt & Camden, 2007;
Ragins & Dutton, 2007; Wilson & Ferch, 2005). Positive relationships
with co-workers, subordinates, and superiors are critical to a woman’s
job satisfaction, motivation, and career advancement, and just as
importantly, contribute favorably to the core competencies and end
products of a particular organization. Even conceptions of effective
leadership are changing to reflect the importance of relational interac-
tions and the skills that are most useful in these, such as empathy, au-
thenticity, and humility (Badarraco, 2002; Collins, 2001; see Fletcher,
2007 for a discussion).
Relationships that women develop with other women are important
and may provide them with social support (Andrew & Montegue,
1998; Aronson, 1998; Lu & Argyle, 1992; Mays, 1985; Nyamathi, Ben-
nett, Leake, & Chen, 1995; Severance, 2005), opportunities for compan-
ionship and enjoyable social interaction (Fehr, 1996; Severance, 2005),
intimacy (Fehr, 2004; Parks & Floyd, 1996a; Sapadin, 1988), instrumen-
tal assistance (Nyamathi et al., 1995; Patterson & Bettini, 1993; Walker,
(Fehr, 1996; Stein, 1993). In fact, the imposition of rigid role structures
may be viewed as antithetical to formation of true friendship bonds
(Bell & Coleman, 1999).
On the other hand, women’s friendships with men in the workplace
differ from those that occur outside of work, in that those within the
workplace are, to a large extent, non-voluntary (Duck, 2007). In reality,
choices of friends outside the workplace are not totally voluntarily
made either. We are most likely to become friends with those who are
of the same gender, similar in age, social class, sexual orientation,
race/ethnicity, and who live in the same geographic area (Casta~ neda &
Burns-Glover, in press; Cook, Bruin, & Crull, 2000; O’Boyle & Thomas,
1996; Rose, 1995; Serafica, Weng, & Kim, 2000; Way & Chen, 2000). To
some extent, women choose their friends at work, certainly, but they
may not realize the extent to which these choices are curtailed,
bounded, or influenced by the specific work context. This may seem
unimportant, but in a friendship outside work for example, the affec-
tive and relationship processes such as caring, trust, fairness, intimacy,
and so on are developed and negotiated with the implicit understand-
ing that if the relationship proves unrewarding, it may be exited. In
the workplace, however, women must often continue to interact, work,
and complete tasks with men even after a friendship has waned or
even failed. The implications this may have for women’s work life,
both for its day-to-day quality and its influence on their success or
advancement in the workplace, may be quite serious in comparison to
friendships outside the workplace.
The social and relational nature of work plays a primary role in
organizational life (Ragins & Dutton, 2007) and, although organizations
are not bound to do so, more and more of them recognize the need to
provide employees with not only a job and salary but also a pleasant
and positive work environment. Organizations may therefore use strat-
egies that promote workplace friendships, such as development of an
atmosphere of openness, encouraging employees to act in a friendly
manner with each other, training of supervisors and staff in how to de-
velop positive relations at work, providing opportunities for workers
to socialize with one another, and so on (Berman, West, & Richter,
2002). Nevertheless, the desire to create a positive and socially enjoy-
able workplace is not the only motivation for organizational managers.
Organizations also understand that workplace friendships, or at least
the opportunity for them in the organization, are linked to important
work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction, decreased employee
turnover intentions, greater work involvement, greater readiness for
organizational change, and greater commitment to the organization
(Madsen, Miller, & John, 2005; Morrison, 2004; Nielsen, Jex, &
Adams, 2000; Riordan & Griffeth, 1995). Workplace friends usually
spend time together that goes beyond the needs of their job
1994; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003), and this can
influence how women approach friendships with men in the work-
place. They themselves may curtail or carefully monitor their behaviors
in relationships with men (and European-American women) to avoid
stereotypes, to ‘‘fit in,’’ or to succeed at work. For example, a study of
Latina managers found that regardless of their generation level, aware-
ness of prejudice and discrimination influenced how open they were
with non-Latina/o coworkers and the extent that they revealed aspects
of their family lives to them (Hite, 2007). Lesbian women’s friendships
with men are influenced by the heteronormativity of organizational
practices; that is, the notion that heterosexuality is ubiquitous, normal,
and unquestioned in the workplace (Bruni, 2006; McDermott, 2006).
Although it may vary depending on the particular organization, its pol-
icies, and the history and personality of individual women, perform-
ance of lesbian, bisexual, or transgender identities in the workplace
always entails a calculation/risk assessment process that can be psy-
chologically costly for women (McDermott, 2006). Part of this calcula-
tion/risk assessment process may include greater wariness of
friendships with men in the workplace on the part of women, particu-
larly in employment settings where hostility toward differing sexual
identities is present. Openly lesbian or bisexual women have reason to
be fearful as, with openness about their sexual orientation, they may
become targets of intimidation, harassment, or discrimination (Ragins,
Cornwell, & Miller, 2003; Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007; Taylor &
Raeburn, 1995). Lesbian and other sexual minority women may rightly
understand that knowledge of their sexual orientation can influence
actual job outcomes, such as promotions (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001).
On the other hand, even if they are willing to develop friendships with
heterosexual men in the workplace, social segregation or even ostra-
cism of lesbian women in organizations, particularly when they take
an openly activist stance, may affect their ability to initiate, develop,
and maintain these friendships (Taylor & Raeburn). This social exclu-
sion may not even be particularly apparent to those affected by it—one
woman employed in an academic setting explained that ‘‘I suffered
horrible ridicule and discrimination in the department but usually
didn’t know about it until after it occurred. You see, I was so far out-
side the networks that no one even told me about all of the events I
was missing’’ (Taylor & Raeburn, p. 265).
A more subtle concern for women surrounding friendships with
men in the workplace, and one they themselves may not be aware of,
is that relationality, and the responsibility for developing connections
with others, is not a gender-neutral process in organizations nor the
larger society (Abrams, 1998; Cancian, 1987; Miller, 1976). While organ-
izations are beginning to appreciate the importance of positive relation-
ships, women are more likely than men to be expected, even assigned,
The only study by Gutek and her colleagues highlights that the
phenomenon of sexuality at work is not always coercive and contains
multiple facets and interpretations by workers. For instance, the
contradictory nature of sexuality in the workplace (i.e., that it can be
an act of resistance to managerial control and regulation, as well as an
expression of hierarchies of oppressive power) is obscured by the more
pronounced focus on its potential coercive effects on workers, particu-
larly women. More nuanced thinking on organizational sexuality refers,
instead, to ‘‘. . . a multileveled understanding of power and resistance in
which struggles around sexuality have manifold consequences’’
(Fleming, 2007, pg. 240). Sexuality, gender, power, resistance, control—
all of these processes in the workplace intersect in complex ways that
are not always easily mapped out in an unambiguous manner and how
they are expressed, evaluated, interpreted, and experienced by women
very much depends on the political context of a particular work setting
(Fleming). This more subtle point is often overlooked, but once brought
to the forefront it suggests a much wider spectrum of women’s experi-
ences with sexuality and romantic relationships with men in the work-
place that may be missing from organizational theory and research.
That said, however, one of the predominant organizational concerns
surrounding workplace romance is the potential for sexual harassment
claims that may result when the relationship fails. Some data indicate a
link between the two. In a survey conducted by the Society for Human
Resource Management, a quarter of the respondents indicated that sex-
ual harassment claims in their organizations were caused by workplace
romances. Of particular concern are dissolved hierarchical relation-
ships, especially direct reporting ones, because they are thought to con-
tain greater potential for sexual harassment claims for a number of
reasons. First, even though negative feelings may exist on the part of
one partner or both partners, they must continue to work with one
another after the relationship is over. In addition, the lower-level part-
ner in such relationships may have had job-related motives for entering
the relationship that have now been thwarted, and this could lead to
resentment. Finally, a power differential between the two exists that
could lead to sexual coercion or discriminatory managerial decision
making (Pierce & Aguinis, 1997).
Sexual harassment is a serious legal and ethical event and should be
dealt with accordingly; however, with respect to a dissolved workplace
romance, judgments of responsibility for the sexual harassment and
decisions about subsequent managerial intervention do not stem solely
from the objective behaviors of the former relationship partners. The
characteristics of observers and aspects of the former workplace
romance play a role in perceptions of responsibility and intervention
decisions. For example, Pierce, Broberg, McClure, and Aguinis (2004)
found that assessment of the immorality of the sexually harassing
REFERENCES
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.
Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.
Adams, R. G., & Allan, G. (1998). Placing friendship in context. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Adams, R. G., Blieszner, R., & De Vries, B. (2000). Definitions of friendship in
the third age: Age, gender, and study location effects. Journal of Aging
Studies, 14, 117–134.
Cook, C., Bruin, M., & Crull, S. (2000). Manipulating constraints: Women’s
housing and the ‘‘metropolitan context.’’ In K. B. Miranne & A. H. Young
(Eds.), Gendering the city: Women, boundaries, and visions of urban life
(pp. 1893–207). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cox, T., Jr. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
De Vries, J., Webb, C., & Eveline, J. (2006). Mentoring for gender equality and
organisational change. Employee Relations, 28, 573–587.
Dillard, J. P. (1987). Close relationships at work: Perceptions of the motives and
performance of relational participants. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 4, 179–193.
Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of
compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308.
Duck, S. (2007). Commentary: Finding connections at the individual/dyadic
level. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at
work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 179–186). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Elesser, K., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex
friendships at work. Human Relations, 59, 1077–1100.
Elfinbein, H. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2007). Fitting in: The effects of relational
demography and person-culture fit on group process and performance.
Group Organization Management, 32, 109–142.
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fehr, B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: A prototype
interaction-pattern model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
265–284.
Festinger, L., Schachter S. S., & Back, K. W. (1950). Social pressures in informal
groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fleming, P. (2007). Sexuality, power and resistance in the workplace. Organiza-
tion Studies, 28, 239–256.
Fletcher, J. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fletcher, J. (2007). Leadership, power and positive relationships. In J. Dutton &
B. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical
and research foundation (pp. 347–371). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Gibson, S. K. (2005). Whose best interests are served? The distinction between
mentoring and support. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 470–488.
Goldner, H., & Strong, M. S. (1987). Speaking of friendship: Middle-class women
and their friends. New York: Greenwood Press.
Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Konrad, A. M. (1990). Predicting social-sexual
behavior at work: A contact hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 33,
560–577.
Harper, Jr., V. B. (2005). Maintaining interpersonal and organizational relations
through electronic mail by men and women. Psychological Reports, 97, 903–906.
Harrington, P. E., & Lonsway, K. A. (2007). Investigating sexual harassment in
law enforcement and nontraditional fields for women. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002). Time, teams, and task per-
formance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1046.
Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 909–924.
Hite, L. (2007). Hispanic women managers and professional: Reflections on life
and work. Gender, Work, and Organization, 14, 20–36.
Hurtado, A. (1996). The color of privilege: Three blasphemies on race and feminism.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in net-
work structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 422–447.
Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence
rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta--
analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56,
607–631.
Johnson, F., & Aries, E. (1983). The talk of women friends. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 6, 353–361.
Jones, G. (1999). Hierarchical workplace romance: An experimental examina-
tion of team member perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20,
1057–1073.
Kalmijn, M., & Flap, H. (2001). Assortative meeting and mating: Unintended
consequences of organized settings for partner choices. Social Forces, 79,
1289–1312.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Jr., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences
and similarities in job attitude preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 593–641.
Lafontaine, E., & Tredeau, L. (1986). The frequency, sources, and correlates of
sexual harassment among women in traditional male occupations. Sex
Roles, 15, 433–442.
Lobel, S. A., Quinn, R. E., Warfield, A., & St. Clair, L. (1994). Love without sex.
Organizational Dynamics, 23, 4–16.
Lu, L., & Argyle, M. (1992). Receiving and giving support: Effects on relation-
ships and well-being. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 5, 123–133.
Luckett Clark, S., & Weismantle, M. (2003, August). Census 2000 Brief. Employ-
ment status: 2000. Retrieved on July 18, 2007, from http://www.census.
gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-18.pdf.
Maddock, S., & Parkin, D. (1994). Gender cultures: How they affect men and
women at work. In M. J. Davidson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in management:
Current research issues (pp. 29–40). London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Madsen, S. R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. (2005). Readiness for organizational
change: Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the
workplace make a difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16,
213–233.
Mainiero, L. (1993). Dangerous liaisons? A review of current issues concerning
male and female romantic relationships in the workplace. In E. Fagenson
(Ed.), Women in management: Trends, issues, and challenges in managerial di-
versity, vol. 4. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Mao, H.-Y. (2006). The relationship between organizational level and workplace
friendship. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1819–
1833.
Markiewicz, D., Devine, I., Kausilas, D. (2000), Friendships of women and men
at work: Job satisfaction and resource implications. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 15, 161–84.
Martin, J. R. (1994). Methodological essentialism, false difference, and other
dangerous traps. Signs 19, 630–657.
Mays, V. M. (1985). Black women working together: Diversity in same sex rela-
tionships. Women’s Studies International Forum, 8, 67–71.
McDermott, E. (2006). Surviving in dangerous places: Lesbian identity perform-
ances in the workplace, social class and psychological health Feminism and
Psychology, 16, 193–211.
Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.
Morrison, R. (2004). Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with
job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions. New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 114–128.
Nielsen, I. K., Jex, S. M., & Adams, G. A. (2000). Development and validation
of scores on a two-dimensional workplace friendship scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60, 628–643.
Nyamathi, A., Bennett, C., Leake, B., & Chen, S. (1995). Social support among
impoverished women. Nursing Research, 44, 376–378.
O’Boyle, C., & Thomas, M. (1996). Friendships between lesbian and heterosexual
women. In J. Weinstock & R. Rothblum (Eds.), Lesbian friendships: For our-
selves and each other (pp. 240–250). New York: New York University Press.
Odden, C. M., & Sias, P. M. (1997). Peer communication relationships and psy-
chological climate. Communications Quarterly, 45, 153–166.
Ostroff, C., & Rothausen, T. (1997). The moderating effect of tenure in person-
environment fit: A field study in educational organizations. Journal of Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 173–188.
Padavic, I., & Reskin, B. F. (1990). Men’s behavior and women’s interest in
blue-collar jobs. Social Problems, 37, 613–628.
Paludi, M. E. (1990). Sociopsychological and structural factors related to wom-
en’s vocational development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
602, 157–168.
Parks, M., & Floyd, K. (1996a). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Commu-
nications, 46, 80–97.
Patterson, B., & Bettini, L. (1993). Age, depression, and friendship: Develop-
ment of a general friendship inventory. Communication Research Reports, 10,
161–171.
Pazy, A. (1987). Sex differences in responsiveness to organizational career man-
agement. Human Resources Management, 26, 243–256.
Pettinger, L. (2005). Friends, relations and colleagues: The blurred boundaries
of the workplace. The Sociological Review, 53, 37–55.
Pierce, C. (1998). Factors associated with participating in a romantic relationship
in a work environment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1712–1731.
Pierce, C., & Aguinis, H. (1997). Bridging the gap between romantic relation-
ships in a work environment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1712–
1730.
Pierce, C., Aguinis, H., & Adams, S. (2000). Effects of a dissolved workplace
romance and rater characteristics on responses to a sexual harassment
accusation. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 869–880.
Pierce, C., Broberg, B., McClure, J., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Responding to sexual
harassment complaints: Effects of a dissolved workplace romance on
decision-making standards. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 95, 66–82.
Pierce, C. A., Byrne, D., & Aguinis, H. (1996). Attraction in organizations: A
model of workplace romance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 5–32.
Powell, G., & Foley, S. (1998). Something to talk about: Romantic relationships
in organizational settings. Journal of Management, 24, 421–448.
Powell, G. (2001). Workplace romances between senior-level executives and
lower-level employees: An issue of work disruption and gender. Human
Relations, 54, 1519–1544.
Quick, J. C., Gavin, J. H., Cooper, C. L., & Quick, J. D. (2004). Working to-
gether: Balancing head and heart. In R. H. Rozensky, N. G. Johnson, C. D.
Goodheart, & W. R. Hammond (Eds.), Psychology builds a healthy world:
Opportunities for research and practice (pp. 219–232). Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Psychological Association.
Quinn, R. E., (1977). Coping with cupid: The formation, impact, and manage-
ment of romantic relationships in organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, 30–45.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A com-
parison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relation-
ships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.
Ragins, B., & Cornwell, J. (2001, April). We are family: The influence of gay
family-friendly policies on gay employees. In L. T. Eby and C. L. Noble
(Co-Chairs), New developments in research on family-related HR policies and
practice: Beyond Ward and June. Symposium conducted at the Annual Con-
ference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San
Diego, CA.
Ragins, B., Cornwell, J., & Miller, J. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: Do
race and gender matter? Group and Organization Management, 28, 45–74.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M., (2007). Making the invisible visible:
Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 92, 1103–1118.
Ragins, B. R., & Dutton, J. E. (2007). Positive relationships at work: An invita-
tion and introduction. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring posi-
tive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation
(pp. 13–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Riach, K., & Wilson, F. (2007). Don’t screw the crew: Exploring the rules of
engagement in organizational romance. British Journal of Management, 18,
79–92.
Randal, A. E., & Ranft, A. L. (2007). Motivations to maintain social ties with
coworkers: The moderating role of turnover intentions on information
exchange. Group & Organization Management, 32, 208–232.
Ray, E. B. (1987). Supportive relationships and occupational stress in the work-
place. In T. L. Albrecht & M. B. Adelman (Eds.), Communicating and social
support (pp. 172–191). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Riordan, C. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). The opportunity for friendship in the
workplace: An underexplored construct. Journal of Business and Psychology,
10, 141–154.
Rose, S. (1995). Women’s friendships. In J. Chrisler & A. Hemstreet (Eds.), Var-
iations on a theme: Diversity and the psychology of women (pp. 79–105).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Saegert, S., Swap, W., & Zajonc, R. (1973). Exposure context and interpersonal
attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 234–242.
Salzinger, L. (2003) Genders in production: Making workers in Mexico’s global facto-
ries. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Samuels, H. (2003). Sexual harassment in the workplace: A feminist analysis of
recent developments in the UK. Women’s Studies International Forum, 26,
467–482.
Sapadin, L. A. (1988). Friendship and gender: Perspectives of professional
women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 387–403.
Sayer, L. C. (2005). Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s
paid work, unpaid work and free time. Social Forces, 84, 285–303.
Schein, E. H. (1994). Organizational and managerial culture as a facilitator or inhibitor
of organizational learning. Boston: The Society for Organizational Learning.
Serafica, F., Weng, A., & Kim, H. (2000). Friendships and social networks
among Asian American women. In J. Chin (Ed.), Relationships among Asian
American women (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Severance, T. (2005). ‘‘You know who you can go to’’: Cooperation and
exchange between incarcerated women. Prison Journal, 85, 343–367.
Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development
of peer friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62,
273–299.
Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations,
perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communica-
tions Research, 22, 5–38.
Stein, C. (1993). Felt obligation in adult family relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Social context and relationships (pp. 78–99). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stobbe, L. (2006). Doing machismo: Legitimating speech acts as a selection dis-
course. Gender, Work, and Organization, 12, 105–123.
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H.
(2003). African American college students’ experiences with everyday rac-
ism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black
Psychology, 29, 38–67.
Swiss, D. (1996). Women breaking through: Overcoming the final 10 obstacles at
work. Princeton, NJ: Pacesetters Books.
Taylor, V., & Raeburn, N. C. (1995). Identity politics as high-risk activism: Ca-
reer consequences for lesbian, gay, and bisexual sociologists. Social Prob-
lems, 42, 252–273.
Vault. (2005). Cupid in the cubicle, says new vault survey. Available from http://
www.thevault.com/nr/printable.jsp?ch[lowem]id=420&article[lowem]id=235.
Walker, K. (1995). ‘‘Always there for me’’: Friendship patterns and expectations
among middle- and working-class men and women. Sociological Forum, 10,
273–296.
For many years Ethiopians have been praying and struggling against
injustice, hoping for a new day to come. The Ethiopian Women Law-
yers Association (EWLA) is one of the many positive results of the
struggles and prayers that took place in the past. Recently many non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) that are managed by women have
been formed, and they are doing an excellent job. Such organizations
are mushrooming everywhere in the rural areas as well as in the cities.
Their efforts are making a difference, one woman at a time.
In 1996, with her few female colleagues, Meaza Ashenafi, executive
director of EWLA, started a legal advocacy group. The main purpose
of the organization was to put an end to various discriminatory laws
against women in Ethiopia and to bring awareness regarding women’s
rights. With the help the organization receives from the United Nations
Development Fund for Women, the association is able to circulate in-
formation about gender equality by teaching women about the law
through the paralegal training that they provide, as well as by the
counseling services and the media outreach effort they undertake.
Ashenafi was a legal advisor to the Ethiopian Transitional Govern-
ment Constitution Commission human rights panel. The experience
that Ashenafi acquired at the commission while writing position papers
regarding women and children was rewarding to her. This experience
encouraged Ashenafi to start her own organization, EWLA.
Ashenafi was born in Asossa, a small village in western Ethiopia,
near the Sudanese border. She gives a lot of credit to her parents, who
instilled in her the importance of education. She appreciates what her
mom did for her. Even though her mom was illiterate, she had the
insight to raise her five children so that they could go to college. Ashe-
nafi says her mom had a lot of unused potential. In school, Ashenafi
was always a hardworking student. Despite the remark that was made
by one of her teachers regarding her potential, ‘‘you are so smart and
have so much potential, it’s too bad you are not a boy’’ (Fidali, 2003,
p. 2), she continued her hard work and it paid off. She went on to
receive her law degree, from Addis Ababa University.
Her association, EWLA, advances the issue of women’s rights in
Ethiopia. According to Ashenafi, the fact that women in Ethiopia do
not have access to justice is the result of the shortage of women’s
groups that stand in an organized fashion against unjust laws and
practices. Ashenafi explains that several laws affect women directly or
indirectly, including family and penal law. She explained that family
law gives a right for the husband to discipline his wife. This allows
women to be treated as if they were children. The penal law on the
other hand gives the right for the criminals who abduct and rape girls
to be their husbands.
The EWLA provides women 15 days of basic Ethiopian law training.
This provides women the information to know what their rights are
under the law and how to assert them. This empowering mechanism
has a domino effect that passes from woman to woman by which
EWLA hopes to guarantee progress.
With the tireless efforts of the EWLA, the penal law of 1957, which
disregarded women’s rights, was reformed in July 2004 and enforced
in May 2005. The association is not fully content with the law, which
still excludes sexual harassment and marital rape. This issue of marital
rape is very significant in light of the transmission of HIV/AIDS in
African society, where women are mostly voiceless. As a consequence,
this disease is killing thousands of women. It is one of the major rea-
sons for so many orphaned children in the country.
One of the cases EWLA fought that attracted worldwide attention
involved Aberash Bekele, a 14-year-old girl who was abducted and
raped and forced to marry her abductor, like many other young girls
in rural Ethiopia. However, Aberash retaliated by killing her abductor,
becoming the first woman known in court to stand up against this
gender-based violence. The association represented the girl to be not
guilty on grounds of self-defense. This exposed the unfair law to Ethio-
pians and to the outside world.
In another case, EWLA stood in support of an Ethiopian migrant
worker in Bahrain for alleged murder of her employer due to abuse.
The association initiated a task force to raise money for her legal sup-
port and asked for government intervention. This helped the migrant
worker obtain a defense lawyer from the Ethiopian government for her
appeal. This led to the exposure of the physical and mental abuse,
REFERENCES
Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association: About EWLA. Retrieved on October 9,
2007, from http://www.etwla.org.
Fidali, T. (2003). Ethiopian women of substance: Africa Prize laureate Meaza
Ashenafi & EWLA. Retrieved on October 10, 2007, from http://www.
tadias.com/v1n5/GRS_2_2003-1.html.
United Nations Development Fund for Women (2000). Ending discriminatory
laws against women in Ethiopia. Retrieved on October 9, 2007, from http://
www.unifemorg/gender issues/voices from the field/story.php?StoryID¼230.
representative for the APA. She is currently chair of the New York NGO
Committee on Aging and a member of APA’s Committee on Aging.
Haimanot Kelbessa was born and raised in Ethiopia. She went to grade
and high school in Ethiopia. She came to the United States in 1982.
Ms. Kelbessa completed undergraduate studies at the University of Hous-
ton, in general studies in 1992. She has worked in a clerical position for
the U.S. Army as a civilian in Saudi Arabia. In addition, she has worked
in various capacities through the years, primarily in property manage-
ment. She is currently working toward her human resource management
certificate at Union Graduate College.
Maria D. Klara received her BA from Boston College in 1999 and then her
MS in counseling psychology from Northeastern University in 2003. She is
currently pursuing her PsyD in school-clinical child psychology at Pace Uni-
versity in New York City. Her academic interests include women and gen-
der issues, psychological assessment, and clinical work with adolescents.
Phoebe Morgan holds a PhD in justice studies from Arizona State Univer-
sity and is a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Northern
Arizona University. She teaches courses about women, crime and justice,
research methods, and justice policy. Her research specialties include
sexual harassment, women’s complaint making, and organized claims-
making. With James Gruber, she edited Male Dominance and Sexual Harass-
ment (Northeastern University Press). Her research also appears in The
Law and Society Review, the Journal of Law, Culture and the Humanities, the
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, The Women’s Studies Association Jour-
nal, Affilia Social Work Journal, the Sourcebook for Violence Against Women,
Classic Papers on Violence Against Women, Everyday Sexism in the Third Mil-
lennium, Investigating Difference, and The Gendered Economy. She is cur-
rently researching sexual harassment in transnational corporations and
the globalization of U.S. sexual harassment policy.
Volume 3
Self, Family, and Social Affects
Edited by
MICHELE A. PALUDI
Praeger Perspectives
Women’s Psychology
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction xi
Chapter 1: Aggressive Men and Witchy Women: The Double
Standard
Susan Strauss 1
Chapter 2: Lessons from My Father: In My Own Voice
Susan Lehrman 21
Chapter 3: Self-Esteem and High-Achieving Women
Tina Stern 25
Chapter 4: Women in Human Resources: In My Own Voice
Linda Dillon 55
Chapter 5: Stress and Health
Paula Lundberg-Love and Donna Lee Faulkner 59
Chapter 6: Preparing to Be Employed: In My Own Voice
Christa White 85
Chapter 7: Mental Health Impact of Sexual Harassment
Susan Fineran and James Gruber 89
Chapter 8: Religion and Women at Work
Michael B. Mathias 109
Chapter 9: Workforce Issues: In My Own Voice
LuAnn Hart 143
Chapter 10: Society’s Gains: Economics of Women in the Workplace
Zhilan Feng and Maneechit Pattanapanchai 149
Index 173
About the Editor and Contributors 179
© 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.
Acknowledgments
‘‘Hillary Clinton needs to wear a dress or skirt now and then. Her
always making public appearances in pants gives a sense she is trying to
‘fit in’ with the boys, which is never going to be the case.’’
‘‘Hillary is cute. Those are her qualifications for prez.’’
‘‘It’ll be nice to have a woman president but you know white America
won’t let her.’’
‘‘Women, above all, should reject hillary. Missus clinton is the biggest
misogynist of all.’’
‘‘hillary clinton running must be a joke! A woman for president! Ha!
Now that[’]s a joke.’’
She [Hillary Clinton] and I are from the same generation. We both went
to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other
choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I’m more joy-
ful than she is.
I have frequently used the following riddle when students and train-
ees indicate that they believe that they themselves do not hold gender-
role stereotypes about occupations:
One afternoon, a man and his son go for a drive through the countryside.
After an hour or so they get into a terrible car crash. The father dies
instantly. The son is taken by a helicopter to the nearest hospital, where
a prominent surgeon is called to help save the boy’s life. Immediately on
entering the operating room and looking at the boy, the surgeon
exclaims, ‘‘I can’t possibly operate on this boy . . . he’s my son.’’ How can
this be?
therapists, dental hygienists, and teacher’s aides are women (U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, 2003). Betz (in press) reported that women remain under-
represented in technical and scientific fields as well as in managerial
positions in education, government, business, and the military.
In a recent study conducted by Catalyst (2007), gender-role stereo-
typing was linked to women’s participation as leaders in business.
According to this report, ‘‘Gender stereotyping, one of the key barriers
to women’s advancement in corporate leadership, leaves women with
limited, conflicting and often unfavorable options no matter how they
choose to lead.’’
Catalyst found that women constitute more than 50% of manage-
ment and professional occupations but are only 15.6% of Fortune 500
corporate officers and 14.6% of Fortune 500 board directors. Ilene Lang,
president of Catalyst, comments on this as follows:
Women earn less than 20% of the bachelor’s degrees in fields such
as engineering and physics and less than 10% of the graduate degrees
in engineering (Betz, 2007). Women represent only about 14% of engi-
neers, 30% of computer systems analysts, and 25% of computer pro-
grammers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2003, 2005). Women account for
8% of physicists and astronomers, 7% of air traffic controllers, 5% of
truck drivers, 4% of pilots, 5% of firefighters, and 2% of carpenters and
electricians (Betz, 2007).
Equally important, women are paid less for full-time employment
than men are; women make only 77% as much as men do when both
are employed full-time (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). This income
disparity is greater for Black, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic
women than for White women, and for middle-age and older women
than for younger women.
‘‘We haven’t come a long way,’’ noted Elizabeth Janeway, ‘‘we’ve
come a short way. If we hadn’t come a short way, no one would be
calling us baby.’’
These realities of the psychology of women at work require an in-
depth look at not only the barriers to women’s success but also the
strategies for empowering women at the individual, organizational,
legal, and societal levels. These three volumes provide an overview of
the scholarly research on the issues related to women and work.
Volume 1, ‘‘Career Liberation, History, and the New Millennium,’’
provides an overview of research on comparisons of men and women
REFERENCES
Allan, E., & Madden, M. (2006). Chilly classrooms for female undergraduate
students: A question of method? Journal of Higher Education, 77, 684–
711.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1992). The AAUW
report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2001). Hostile hallways:
Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: AAUW
Educational Foundation.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2002). Title IX at 30:
Report card on gender equity. Washington, DC: Author.
Levy, G., Sadovsky, A., & Troseth, G. (2000). Aspects of young children’s per-
ceptions of gender-typed occupations. Sex Roles, 42, 993–1006.
Naua, M., Epperson, D., & Kahn, J. (1998). A multiple-groups analysis of pre-
dictors of higher level career aspirations among women in mathematics,
science and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483–
496.
Paludi, M., & Fankell-Hauser, J. (1986). An idiographic approach to the study
of women’s achievement strivings. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 89–
100.
Paludi, M., Martin, J., & Paludi, C. (2007). Sexual harassment: The hidden gen-
der equity problem. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity
through education (pp. 215–229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paludi, M., Paludi, C., & DeFour, D. (2004). Introduction: Plus ca change, plus
c’est la meme chose (The more things change, the more they stay the same).
In M. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. xi–xxxi).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Richardson, B., & Sandoval, P. (2007). Impact of education on gender equity in
employment and its outcomes. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving
gender equity through education (pp. 43–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schroeder, P. (1998). 24 Years of housework . . . and the place is still a mess: My life
in politics. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel.
Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the
think-manager-think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.
Siegel, D., & Reis, S. M., (1998). Gender differences in teacher and student per-
ceptions of gifted students’ ability and effort. Gifted Children Quarterly, 42,
39–47.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Facts on women
workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Women in the labor
force: A data book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
White, M., & White, G. (2006). Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereo-
types. Sex Roles, 55, 259–266.
Woman’s idea of government. (1870). New York Herald, p. 6.
suggested by Gutek and Morasch (1982), states that women and men
carry over their gender-based roles into the workplace even when those
roles are inappropriate. This phenomenon is most likely to occur when
the gender ratio is skewed toward either women or men and is most
obvious when women work in male-dominated jobs. When a woman
works in a male-dominated job, her sex is salient in her position, leading
to both her female and male coworkers questioning whether she is as ca-
pable as a man, which reflects the coworkers’ gender bias.
As these researchers have demonstrated, stereotypes appear to play
an essential role in how women and men are perceived and expected
to behave. A deviation from their prescribed role may be viewed as a
violation of the social order and may lead to the double standard of
women being devalued and viewed as witchy and less competent. As
a result women are caught in a double bind of balancing strength and
autonomy with warmth and wanting to be liked; they can be discrimi-
nated against for their membership in any of the female stereotype
subtypes, and the female stereotype works against them in a male-
dominated environment. The stereotypes reflect sexist beliefs that
require examination.
SEXISM
Sexism is defined by Forbes, Collinsworth, Jobe, Braum, and Wise
(2007) as ‘‘the assignment of roles and privileges as a function of gender
(p. 266) . . . [and] plays a central role in implementing and justifying the
oppression of women’’ (p. 267). Glick and Fiske (1996, 1997, 2001) have
further divided sexism into two interrelated components, hostile and
benevolent sexism. The researchers defined benevolent sexism as ‘‘atti-
tudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereo-
typically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling
or tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviors typically cate-
gorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy seeking (e.g., self-disclo-
sure)’’ (1996, p. 491). Benevolent sexism, however, stems from the belief
that women are inferior to men and that they require special attention or
privileges because they are not men’s equals (Forbes et al.). Glick and
Fiske (2001) define hostile sexism as ‘‘an adversarial view of gender rela-
tions in which women are perceived as seeking to control men whether
through sexuality or feminist ideology’’ (p. 109). According to Glick and
Fiske (1996, 1997, 2001, 2002), hostile and benevolent sexism are comple-
mentary to each other, with both demonstrating the inequality between
women and men. For example, men who hold benevolent sexist beliefs
about women (perceived by some as positive characteristics) likewise
believe in hostile sexism (negative stereotypes) (Glick & Fiske, 1996).
Sibley and Wilson (2004) found that the complementary effect
between hostile and benevolent sexism by men is evident in men’s
COMMUNICATION
Women and men communicate differently (Arliss, 1991; Stout &
McPhail, 1998; Tannen, 1990, 1994). This gendered communication
demonstrates a subtle and sometimes invisible sexism that is effective
in diminishing a woman’s status, demeaning her humanity, and mini-
mizing her power (Stout & McPhail, 1998). Tannen (1990) stated that
‘‘language keeps women in their place’’ (p. 241). She indicated that
women have a choice to make in their communication style—that of
being perceived as a ‘‘strong leader or a good woman’’ (p. 241).
Women who are assertive are labeled domineering, aggressive, witchy, or
worse. Words such as bitch, nag, whore, and cunt are on the severe end
of hostile and demeaning labels for women (Arliss), particularly when
women step out of their social stereotype and are verbally aggressive
and/or argumentative. Tannen contrasted a male speaker’s and female
speaker’s style and how others perceive them in the following quote:
Nicotera and Rancer (1994) found that men are significantly more
likely to be argumentative and to express verbal aggression. Men who
are not aggressive are often labeled wimps (Tannen, 1994). According to
Infante (1981, 1985), those who are highly argumentative are viewed
more positively than those who are not likely to argue. Men are
expected to be more aggressive and forceful on the basis of their per-
ceived higher status (Conway & Vartanian, 2000). Infante (1985) stated
that an individual’s credibility is enhanced if he is argumentative.
Women, then, may be perceived as less credible than men on the basis
of lower argumentative behavior. Tannen (1994) asserted that women
who do not display ‘‘angry outbursts’’ (p. 182) may set themselves up
for exploitation because their behavior may be perceived as avoidance
of conflict. Smith et al. (1990) found, however, that when women are
angry, they violate gender stereotypes, risk rejection, and will be
viewed more negatively than angry men.
Women are concerned with being liked and getting along so they
have learned conflict-avoidant behavior and are more likely to seek con-
sensus (Smith et al., 1990). Women typically enjoy using consensus as
the preferred style rather than a style of ruling with an iron fist (Tannen,
1994). Infante (1987) stated that ‘‘according to the cultural sex-role
expectations model, arguing . . . is compatible with expectations for male
behavior but incompatible with expectations for female behavior’’ (p.
175). Women perceive argumentativeness more negatively than men
regardless of which gender is displaying the behavior (Nicotera &
Rancer, 1994). Perceptions and evaluation of aggressive behavior varies
on the basis of the gender of the individual (Harris & Knight-Bohnhoff,
1996). Argumentativeness and aggression are not the only forms of com-
munication in which women and men are judged differently. The ways
in which both genders are addressed differs on the basis of gender, with
women more likely to be called by their first names.
Using a woman’s first name in addressing her, rather than address-
ing her with her title, such as Dr. or Ms., is common, whereas men are
more likely to be addressed with their titles (Stout & Kelly, 1990). Stout
and Kelly found in their study that 72% of the time women managers
were called by their first names yet only 28% of the time were men
referred to by their first names. Titles are indicators of one’s status and
demonstrate respect and equality when used by all individuals in com-
munication. When titles are not equally used, for example when male
physicians call female nurses by their first names yet nurses are
expected to use the title of Doctor when addressing a physician, it is a
subtle demeaning of women and demonstrates male hegemony.
According to Stout and McPhail (1998), ‘‘language has been used to
exclude women from participation as equals and thus keeps women as
invisible outsiders’’ (p. 81). One of the most common yet insidious
examples of excluding women is the use of the default gender pronoun
he or use of the word man, such as in mailman, policeman, mankind,
etc. Though progress has been made in correcting the error, it is still a
common communication trait. Wood’s (1994) study concluded that peo-
ple do not think of women but automatically think of men when hear-
ing or seeing in print the generic word man.
Communication, both overt and covert, expresses the stereotypes
and sexism that demean women at work and in society. It is the tool
used by both genders to enact the double standard that portrays
women negatively. But these three constructs—gender stereotypes, sex-
ism, and communication—are cogs in a wheel of a patriarchal system.
often silent when there is cause to express their concerns. Their silence
reflects feelings of shame and embarrassment about their oppression.
There is a resistance in acknowledging that as humans we are part of
the patriarchal and oppressive system, and therefore we often fail to
acknowledge its dynamic. Friere declared that oppression is successful
because it is not recognized and can therefore become internalized.
Internalized oppression occurs when women have learned to internal-
ize the negative beliefs about women touted by their oppressor, often
feeling inferior to men (Stout & McPhail, 1998). Women will often take
on the voice of men, their oppressor, by stating, for example, that they
would rather work with men than women, or would rather work for a
male boss than a female boss. In essence, then, women become judg-
mental and critical of their own gender—they internalize the misogyny
of the patriarchal system. It’s misogyny that changed the concept of
the word witch from being that of a wise woman healer or midwife to
that of an evil-doer, resulting in burning ‘‘witches’’ at the stake during
the Middle Ages because of their healing abilities (Ashley, 1976; Ehren-
reich & English, 1973; Johnson).
Not all women necessarily experience oppression the same just
because they are women, however. Race, sexual orientation, religious
beliefs, and other aspects of womanhood influence the degree of
oppression one may both experience and internalize (Johnson, 1997).
Pheterson (1986) provided a more detailed definition of the construct
of internalized oppression:
When women and men label women who are assertive, or who dis-
play what are typically labeled male characteristics, or who work in
male-dominated occupations, as witchy, it serves to maintain the patri-
archal system by keeping women ‘‘in their place’’ and promoting male
privilege (Johnson, 1997).
One aspect of oppression is horizontal hostility (HH) (Stone, 2007),
also called horizontal violence (Friere, 1968; Lee & Saeed, 2001). HV
occurs when the oppressed direct their anger and sense of helplessness
and hopelessness about their oppression to members of their own
group. This is a result of often being unable to exhibit feelings of
aggression against the dominant group for fear of reprisal. They also
tend to lack pride with their own group and are hesitant to align them-
selves with those members who have the least power within their
group (Dunn, 2003). This can result in self-hatred, an example of inter-
nalized oppression, where women (and men) are unable to challenge
the patriarchal system and its male privilege; they may not even see
patriarchy as a problem because it is so much a part of the fabric of
their life from birth—it is the reality in which all human beings exist
(Johnson, 1997).
Stone’s (2007) qualitative study identified a number of issues that
catalyze HH. These included jealousy, competition, and/or recognition
for jobs, control, and power issues and female stereotypes where the
women expected their coworkers to behave in traditionally female
ways. Behaviors comprising the HH were sarcasm, verbal abuse, public
reprimands, sabotage of another’s work, taking credit for another’s
work, exclusion, gossip, whispering, and blaming. Simpson and Cohen
(2004), acknowledging that women can be bullies, stated:
indicated that the current beauty standards and practices maintain gender
inequality. Forbes et al. also found in their study with women and men
that an association existed between sexism, hostility toward women, and
the Western standards and practices of what constitutes beauty.
When few women are employed in a male-dominated workplace, they
are known as tokens (Kanter, 1977). Kanter discovered that, when
women find themselves as tokens, they may disengage in their associa-
tion with other women, believing that it will improve their standing with
their male colleagues. The token woman will come to believe that, to
belong with the guys, she needs to detach from the other women to the
degree that she begins to incorporate the same prejudices against women
as do her male peers. As a female token, her gender becomes particularly
salient if she is promoted because the promotion may be due, in part, to
her gender. As a result, she is viewed as a competitor by the other
women with whom she works, leading to rivalry relationships. Kanter
argued that the men with whom the tokens work establish a game of
loyalty in which the women are compared to each other on the basis
of the amount of loyalty they demonstrate to their male coworkers. One
of the aspects of the game is for the women, sometimes unconsciously,
to turn against their own gender, collude with the men, and interfere
with hiring and promotional practices of other women by criticizing and
devaluing them, thereby allowing the men to maintain their dominance.
Harris (1974) found that females were more aggressive to other
females than to males. Women tend to use covert aggression in their
abuse of other women, such as exclusion and gossip (Mizrahi, 2004).
Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Lagerspetz (1994) identified a variety of
aggressive behaviors women use toward each other in addition to
exclusion and gossip: negative facial expressions, sharing secrets,
spreading rumors, sharing nasty comments about another, and ignor-
ing, to name a few. Both men and women prefer to use covert aggres-
sion tactics, with women more likely to use social manipulation than
men. Covert aggression by both genders is an attempt to disguise abu-
sive behavior in hopes of preventing retaliation and/or social ostraciz-
ing. Likewise, covert aggression was found to be the more prevalent
form of aggression in Baron’s (Baron et al., 1999) study.
According to Loya, Cowan, and Walters (2006), one catalyst of
WHW is any situation that has the power to stimulate negative feelings
in women about themselves as women. Heterosexual women who are
dependent on men for their social identity tended to devalue other
women (Cowan et al., 1998; Henderson & Cunningham, 1993). Cowen
and her colleagues also found that women who were hostile to other
women tended to be younger, dissatisfied with their personal and sex-
ual lives, less emotionally intimate with their partners, more hostile to
men, and were more accepting of interpersonal and sexual violence to-
ward women.
both horizontal and vertical segregation; (b) the relationship between the
target and the perpetrator as well as the overall relationships among the
women, the role the men play in impacting the women’s relationships;
and (c) whether the behavior was female to female and/or any other
indicators that merit attention such as a general atmosphere of misogyny.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps change is looming in perceptions of strong ‘‘masculine’’
women. Ledet and Henley’s study (2000) demonstrated that power
was associated with masculine characteristics. The researchers found
that women in senior positions within their workplace were seen as
masculine in comparison to both women and men in lower positions.
This result was viewed in a positive light, indicating that female stereo-
types of dependent, soft, and unassertive were not associated with
women in senior leadership roles, and therefore may be changing.
Examining the results of Ledet and Henley’s study, and the research
on sexism, stereotypes, and communication, is a critical step in creating
a society of equality. Framing these constructs within the patriarchal sys-
tem of oppression may add a more comprehensive approach to disman-
tling the patriarchy that has existed for thousands of years (Johnson,
1997) and continues to exert its influence on the double standard
between women and men. Changing patriarchy is a challenge that must
be stimulated and propelled forward by not only the scholarly research
but by organizations who currently support male privilege; and the
women and men who are a part of the patriarchal system must know
there are alternative paths.
REFERENCES
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and
acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame
and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125.
Acher, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.
Gender and Society, 4, 139–158.
Arliss, L. P. (1991). Gender communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ashley, J. A. (1976). Hospitals, paternalism, and the role of the nurse. Teachers Col-
lege: Columbia University.
Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determi-
nants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injus-
tice and the type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281–296.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender and race-based standards of
competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for
devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544–557.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in
covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27–33. Retrieved
on January 29, 2006, from EBSCO database.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: De-
scriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psy-
chology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665–692.
Conway, M., & Vartanian, L. R. (2000). A status account of gender stereotypes:
Beyond communality and agency. Sex Roles, 43(3/4), 181–199. Retrieved on
June 3, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Cowan, G., Neighbors, C., DeLaMoreaux, J., & Behnke, C. (1998). Women’s
hostility toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 267–284.
Retrieved on May 3, 2007, from EBSCO database.
Deaux, K. (1995). How basic can you be? The evolution of research on gender
stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), 11–21. Retrieved on April 16,
2007, from ProQuest database.
Devine, P. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled
components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. Retrieved
on March 28, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Dunn, H. (2003). Horizontal violence among nurses in the operating room.
AORN Journal, 78, 977–988.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effective-
ness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evalu-
ation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women?
Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judg-
ments of competence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review
of social psychology: Vol. 5 (pp. 1–35). New York: John Wiley.
Ehrenreich, B., & English, D. (1973). Witches, midwives and nurses: A history of
women healers. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press.
Faludi, S. (1992). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New
York: Doubleday.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyp-
ing. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. Retrieved on March 9, 2007, from
ProQuest database.
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991).
Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price
Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060. Retrieved on
March 9, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual
harassment: A theory with implications for organizational change. Jour-
nal of Social Issues, 51, 97–116. Retrieved on July 19, 2005, from EBSCO
database.
Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereo-
typing and discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender
issues in contemporary society (pp. 173–196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the
workplace. American Psychologist, 48, 1070–1076.
math and science skills, I was encouraged to take chorus, acting, and
domestic science electives in my junior and senior year rather than
advanced science and math courses.
Despite these limitations, I have had an engaging career that I look
back on with pride.
I taught high school in Alaska and Australia during my early post-
baccalaureate years. I pursued a master’s degree in public health, fol-
lowed by 12 years in hospital management, in my late 20s and 30s. I
received my PhD from the University of California at Berkeley in my
early 40s. I taught at the college level and then became a higher educa-
tion administrator in my late 40s and 50s.
As discordant as this career pathway might appear, my internal
compass has consistently led me in the direction of using my interper-
sonal and organizational skills to start new programs and to solve
sticky organizational problems.
My first management position was an entry-level job in a hospital.
As fate would have it, my boss passed away very suddenly when I
had been in the position for a short time. The organization found itself
in a tough position. My boss had been spearheading several important
projects, and there was no one waiting in the wings to step into his
position. After discussing the situation with an individual who was to
play an important mentoring role in my life, I went to the president
and said that I would be willing to step into my boss’s role on an in-
terim basis. His first inclination was, literally, to laugh. I was young
and inexperienced and most of the individuals I would be supervising
were relatively uneducated older males—a tough group for anyone to
control.
In the final analysis, the organization put me into the interim slot,
‘‘but only until we find a man who can take on the position.’’ And
with the warning, ‘‘These guys are going to try to make mincemeat of
you, so don’t do anything to rock the boat!’’
While my father may have been on the wrong track regarding my
college education, he left me with a set of values that served me well
in this interim leadership position. He hammered home to all his chil-
dren, ‘‘If you accept a job, give 110% and do anything and everything
within ethical bounds to make a success of it. I don’t care if you have
to work 80 hours a week! Never give up!’’
With this in mind, I determined that I would have to not only work
hard, but be smart. It became clear to me early on that my new depart-
ment was grossly overstaffed. Although I had been told not to rock the
boat, I knew the hospital was experiencing financial difficulties.
Another piece of wisdom from my father was to, ‘‘Do the right thing,
even if it isn’t the popular thing.’’
As natural attrition began to occur in my department, I again turned
to my mentor and became convinced that the right thing to do was to
INTRODUCTION
The psychology literature is full of empirical studies and theoretical
articles on self-esteem, and there is considerable research on women
and achievement. Yet, there is relatively little research on the intersection
of gender, self-esteem, and achievement, and even less research on the
concerns experienced by high-achieving women that may be related to
their self-esteem. Over the past 40 years, psychologists have proposed
that successful women have characteristics thought to be associated with
high self-esteem (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Fitzgerald & Harmon, 2001)
and, conversely, that high-achieving women experience self-doubt, suc-
cess-related fears, and fail to internalize their successes (Horner, 1969;
Clance & Imes, 1978). Both hypotheses have, at times, received attention
in the professional literature. Vocational development theorists agree that
women’s achievement is influenced by a complex interaction among
various individual characteristics, such as self-esteem, with an array of
external and social influences (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Fitzgerald &
Harmon, 2001; Gomez et al., 2001; Richie et al., 1997). The purpose of
this chapter is to examine literature on the relationship between self-
esteem and achievement in women and to learn more about the con-
cerns that high-achieving women experience that are related to their
self-esteem.
Research on the relationship among self-esteem and achievement,
leadership, and performance has been conducted in diverse disciplines.
Counseling psychologists who study career development have
Gender Typing
In addition to self-efficacy, Fassinger (2005) and Phillips and Imhoff
(1997) emphasized the critical influence of internalized gender social-
ization on ‘‘vocationally relevant attitudes, beliefs, and personal traits
contributing to the self-concept’’ (Fassinger, 2005, p. 99). Defining char-
acteristics of female gender socialization that influence vocational
behavior include nurturance, caretaking, cooperativeness, denial of
one’s own needs, male-referential self-worth judgments, expectations
for marriage and children, and avoidance of cross-typed interests and
behaviors (Fassinger, 2005). Such female-typed characteristics manifest
themselves in the workplace as a range of ‘‘well-documented self-
concept problems for women including compromised decision making,
self-doubt, low aspirations, underutilization of talents and abilities, lack
of confidence, low expectations for success, role conflict, guilt, and in-
ordinate concern over the judgment of others’’ (Fassinger, 2005, p. 99).
An additional consequence of this cycle is that women with weak self-
concept will be more likely to blame themselves for external discrimi-
nation, which will reduce the likelihood that they will take effective
action against it, perpetuating ‘‘a cycle of self-doubt and self-denigra-
tion’’ (Fassinger, 2005, p. 99). Gender socialization can also result in
depressed entitlement (Fassinger, 2002). Given the numerous negative
consequences of strong gender-typing for occupational advancement,
it is not surprising that high-achieving women are low in many
SELF-ESTEEM
Researchers agree that the role and importance of self-esteem is
heavily influenced by culture (Diener & Diener, 1995); in the United
States it has been called a preoccupation (Solomon, 2006), a popular ob-
session (Koch, 2006), the ‘‘holy grail of psychological health’’ (Crocker
& Knight, 2005, p. 200), and ‘‘the royal road to happiness and personal
fulfillment, and an antidote to a variety of social ills, including unem-
ployment, gang violence, and teenage pregnancy’’ (Brown & Marshall,
2006, p. 4). Solomon reports that using self-esteem as a search term in
Google in 2003 resulted in 2,270,000 results. Between January and Octo-
ber of 2001, Baumeister and his colleagues (2003) searched the Psyc-
INFO databases for all articles containing the term self-esteem in the
abstract and found 15,059 articles. Yet despite the widespread interest
and belief in self-esteem among some academics and the public,
research conclusions about the importance of and behavioral outcomes
related to self-esteem have been controversial and a source of debate in
the professional literature. Academics who research and study self-
esteem disagree about the definition of self-esteem (Mruk, 2006), its na-
ture (Marsh, Craven, & Martin, 2006), its function (Brown & Marshall),
and its importance to the individual and to society (Owens & McDa-
vitt, 2006; Crocker & Park, 2004; Pyszczynski, Greenburg, Solomon,
Arndt, & Schimel, 2004), whether it produces specific behavioral out-
comes (Baumeister et al.), whether it is a basic human need (Koch,
2006), whether having high self-esteem is necessarily positive (Bau-
meister et al.), and whether people should try to pursue high self-
esteem as a goal in itself (Crocker & Park).
Defining Self-Esteem
The first challenge in studying self-esteem is that there is little agree-
ment about what is meant by the term (Brown & Marshall, 2006).
Researchers use and define self-esteem in different ways (Mruk, 2006).
There are unidimensional and multidimensional approaches to under-
standing self-esteem (Marsh et al., 2006). A unidimensional use of the
term refers to global or trait self-esteem. Global or trait self-esteem
refers to the way ‘‘people generally feel about themselves’’ (Brown &
Marshall, p. 4) or the overall evaluation of one’s worth or importance
(Blascovitch & Tomaka, 1991). Global self-esteem has been found to be
relatively stable across a person’s life span (Brown & Marshall). From a
multidimensional perspective, psychologists also study state self-esteem
and domain-specific self-esteem (Brown & Marshall). State self-esteem
is more changeable than global self-esteem and refers to feelings of
self-worth or temporary emotional reactions to various contexts; e.g.,
feelings that occur after getting a promotion or winning an award. Do-
main-specific self-esteem refers to self-evaluations of specific abilities
and attributes; e.g., occupational self-esteem or academic self-esteem
(Brown & Marshall). While the constructs of global, trait, and domain-
specific self-esteem are related, they are also distinct, and theorists
disagree about which conceptualization is most useful (Brown &
Marshall). Brown and Marshall fault researchers for contributing to
confusion in the study of self-esteem by not specifying the definition or
level of self-esteem they are using in their research. In addition to defi-
nitional complications, the nature of self-esteem is also debated; some
researchers emphasize the cognitive aspect of self-esteem (a rational
assessment of worth; e.g., I am competent), while others focus on the
affective component (feeling of liking of oneself; e.g., I feel good about
who I am, I feel worthwhile), and some conceptualizations advocate
understanding self-esteem as a combination and interaction of both
competence and worthiness (Mruk). Finally, to confuse the issue fur-
ther, there are numerous terms that are similar to but distinct from self
esteem, including self-concept, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction. And there
are other terms that are considered to be more or less synonymous with
self-esteem, including self-worth, self-acceptance, and self-regard (Blasco-
vitch & Tomaka).
Contingencies of Self-Worth
Despite the conclusions of Baumeister and his colleagues (2003),
Crocker and Park (2004) believe that the desire for self-esteem and its
pursuit underlie much of human behavior. However, they contend that
research and discussions of self-esteem have overemphasized the im-
portance of whether a person’s self-esteem is high or low.
The problem with research in this area is not that self-esteem is irrel-
evant but rather that research has focused too much on the level of
trait self-esteem and insufficiently on what people do to demonstrate
to themselves and to others that they have worth and value, and on
the consequences of this pursuit (p. 394).
According to this model, the things that people do to determine that
they are worthy and valuable are of greater significance than the level
of a person’s self-esteem (Crocker & Knight, 2005; Crocker & Wolfe,
2001). These behaviors are labeled contingencies of self-worth. For
example, if a person succeeds in a domain on which self-worth is con-
tingent, the person’s self-esteem would increase, and failure in a con-
tingent domain would result in a decrease in self-esteem. While global
self-esteem has few specific behavioral correlates, contingencies of
REVIEW OF STUDIES
White, Cox, and Cooper (1992) conducted a qualitative study of 48
women in the United Kingdom who ‘‘had achieved extraordinary lev-
els of career success’’ (p. 5). The women were executives, entrepre-
neurs, politicians, and senior members of high-status professions. Peers
in a prominent women’s group for ‘‘high-flying women’’ determined
whether a career was considered extraordinarily successful (p. 7), but
their criteria were not specified. The purpose of their study was to
examine the characteristics and the career trajectory of those who make
it to the top. Participants were interviewed for 1 hour, and they were
asked about their childhoods, education, work and non-work/family
history, and their awareness of organizational power and politics. In
addition, participants took three psychometric tests: one on locus of
control, one on need for achievement, and one on gender identity.
Their scores on these tests were compared to those of women who had
low and moderate levels of achievement.
Based on Crocker’s contingencies of self-worth (Crocker, 2002),
respondents’ comments related most often to the contingency of com-
petency. Participants frequently cited competency-related themes,
including having a strong belief in their own abilities, having an inter-
nal locus of control, recognizing the importance of hard work, being te-
nacious, wanting to take advantage of opportunities, recognizing the
importance of perseverance, being motivated to excel, preferring inter-
esting and challenging work over promotions, recognizing that
advancement depended on competence, valuing self-development, and
having high standards. Themes related to the contingency of approval
or recognition from others included feeling increased self-confidence as
a result of feedback from mentors, desiring recognition from others,
knowing it was important to ‘‘blow their own horn,’’ recognizing the
need to ‘‘sell’’ oneself. Related to the contingency of love for family,
respondents cited feeling an ‘‘energy deficit’’ related to the complica-
tions of managing work and home and worrying about the possible
negative impact of family demands on work. Respondents discussed
the need to appear professional, which is suggestive of the contingency
of self-worth related to appearance. Finally, themes of integrity and
honesty at work emerged, which are related to the virtue contingency
of self-worth. To summarize, the participants expressed most concerns
related to the competency contingency followed by approval or recog-
nition from others and love for family. Concerns related to the contin-
gency of virtue and appearance emerged less often, and concerns
way of opening doors for others, seeing the value in giving back to so-
ciety and the community. Several of these responses are also reflective
of non-contingent self-esteem, including thinking of the collective as
well as the individual, improving conditions for others, wanting to suc-
ceed as a way of helping others, being motivated to give back to soci-
ety, feeling interconnected with others, and believing that they and
their work fit into the larger world. Participants in this study made a
high number of virtue and non-contingent responses.
Kawahara, Esnil, and Hsu (2007) conducted a qualitative study on
12 women of Asian descent. This sample purposely included partici-
pants to ensure that diverse Asian ethnicities and professions would be
represented. All women were leaders and considered to be high
achievers on the basis of a variety of criteria. Each participant com-
pleted a five-question interview that lasted from 45 minutes to 2.5
hours. The purpose of the study was to gain a greater understanding
of Asian-American women leaders.
The authors identified six themes that emerged from the interviews.
The themes were knowing oneself and doing something you believe in;
having a vision and inspiring others to work on the vision; having a
relational and collaborative leadership style; taking on challenges,
struggles, and conflicts; having both dominant culture efficacy and
biculturalism; and recognizing the importance of support and encour-
agement. The greatest number of comments corresponded with the vir-
tue contingency of self-worth. These included making choices in
accordance with their values, recognizing the importance of things
beyond themselves and their own interests, being concerned about
others and the community in general, recognizing one’s responsibility
to others, wanting to be a social activist and be of service, creating
equality in the workplace regardless of position or level, having a com-
mitment to social justice, promoting the empowerment of others, and
wanting to create a harmonious environment. All the comments related
to virtue also match the non-contingent self-esteem in that they go
beyond the self, express the desire to help others, and focus on some-
thing larger than the self. Several comments corresponded with the
contingency of self-worth related to competency. These included recog-
nizing the importance of self-development, being willing to take
charge, wanting to learn new skills, being willing to work hard, being
willing to become involved in challenges, and being willing to do
whatever it takes to achieve the desired outcome. Comments related to
the contingency of approval or regard from others included wanting to
command people’s respect and cooperation, being able to inspire
others, desiring to understand others and to be understood by them
both within and outside one’s community, desiring support and
encouragement from others, wanting to present a positive image of
Asian-American women, and wanting to show that Asian-American
women are competent leaders. Comments relating to the love for fam-
ily contingency included recognizing the importance of support from
family members and partners. Some comments related to ethnicity did
not correspond to any of Crocker’s (2002) contingencies of self-worth.
These included experiences with oppression and prejudice as well as
the desire to challenge cultural norms for Asian women. Once again,
the number of comments reflective of collectivist values was expressed
more frequently by the Asian-American women than by some of the
other samples, with the exception of the Latinas.
Others’ Outdoing
approval or Physical Love from others in Non-contingent
regard appearance Competency family competition Virtue Faith self-esteem
better for other women or members of their ethnic group. Only one
concern related to the internal contingency of faith, and this was
expressed by an African-American participant. Finally, and impor-
tantly, many comments were reflective of non-contingent self-esteem,
self-esteem some consider to be optimal. Non-contingent self-esteem is
demonstrated when, instead of focusing on the self, a person’s focus is
outside of the self and on helping others and making a contribution.
Latinas, Asian-American women, and the participants in the study
with both African-American and White participants cited many more
concerns that were reflective of non-contingent self-esteem than did the
participants in other studies.
Participants repeated specific concerns across studies that dealt with
negotiating the demands of work and family, gaining recognition in
the workplace, valuing competence, and having the desire to make a
contribution. Despite theoretical disagreements about many aspects of
self-esteem and its weak predictive relationship to performance, based
on findings from research on women and achievement, high-achieving
women possess many characteristics that are suggestive of high self-
esteem. These characteristics include high self-efficacy, instrumentality,
autonomy, and persistence. Gomez and her colleagues (2001) con-
cluded that a profile for high-achieving, professional women is emerg-
ing in the literature that finds them to be passionate, tenacious, high in
career self-efficacy and conviction, and to have effective coping skills,
internal motivation, career persistence, and high instrumentality.
REFERENCES
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does
high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happi-
ness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4,
1–44.
Betz, N. (2001). Career self-efficacy. In F. T. L. Leong & A. Barzak (Eds.), Con-
temporary models in vocational psychology (pp. 55–77). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Betz, N., & Fitzgerald, L. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Blascovitch, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson,
P. R. Shaver, & L. W. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (pp. 115–155). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2006). The three faces of self-esteem. In M. K. Ker-
nis (Ed.), Self esteem issues and answers (pp. 4–9). New York: Psychology Press.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving
women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy Theory,
Research and Practice, 15, 1–8.
Clance, P. R., & O’Toole, M. A. (1987). The imposter phenomenon: An internal
barrier to empowerment and achievement. Women and Therapy, 6, 51–64.
Cox, M. J., Owen, M. T., Henderson, V. K., & Margand, N. A. (1992). Prediction
of infant-father and infant-mother attachment. Developmental Psychology, 28,
474–483.
Crawford, M., & Unger, R. (2004). Women and gender: A feminist psychology (4th
ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Crocker, J. (2002). Contingencies of self-worth: Implications for self-regulation
and psychological vulnerability. Self and Identity, 1, 143–149.
Crocker, J. (2006). What is optimal self-esteem? In M. K. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem
issues and answers (pp. 119–124). New York: Psychology Press.
Crocker, J., & Knight, K. M. (2005). Contingencies of self-worth. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 14, 200–203.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, S. A. (2003). Contingen-
cies of self-worth in college students: Measurement and theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 392–414.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological
Review, 108, 593–623.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and
self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Fassinger, R. (2002). Hitting the ceiling: Gendered barriers to occupational
entry, advancement, and achievement. In L. Diamant & J. A. Lee (Eds.),
Psychology of sex, gender, and jobs (pp. 21–46). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fassinger, R. (2005). Theoretical issues in the study of women’s career develop-
ment: Building bridges in a brave new world. In W. B. Walsh & M. L.
Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research, and prac-
tice (3rd ed., pp. 85–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Harmon, L. W. (2001). Women’s career development: A
postmodern update. In F. T. L. Leong & A. Barzak (Eds.), Contemporary
models in vocational psychology (pp. 21–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Fried-Buchalter, S. (1992). Fear of success, fear of failure, and the imposter phe-
nomenon: A factor analytic approach to convergent and discriminant va-
lidity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 368–379.
Fried-Buchalter, S. (1997). Fear of success, fear of failure, and the imposter
phenomenon among male and female marketing managers. Sex Roles, 37,
847–859.
Gomez, M. J., Fassinger, R. E., Prosser, J., Cooke, K., Meija, B., & Luna, J.
(2001). Voces abriendo caminos (voices forging paths): A qualitative study
of the career development of notable Latinas. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 48, 286–300.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties
for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.
Horner, M. S. (1969). Fail: Bright women. Psychology Today, 3, 36.
Hyde, J. S. (2006). Half the human experience, 7th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mif-
flin.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits—
self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global
self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes.
American Sociological Review, 60, 141–156.
Sanchez, D. T., & Crocker, J. (2005). How investment in gender ideals affects
well-being: The role of external contingencies of self-worth. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 29, 63–77.
Schwalbe, M. L., Gecas, V., & Baxter, R. (1986). The effects of occupational con-
ditions and individual characteristics on the importance of self-esteem
sources in the workplace. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 63–84.
Solomon, S. (2006). Self-esteem is central to human well-being. In M. K. Kernis
(Ed.), Self esteem issues and answers (pp. 254–259). New York: Psychology
Press.
Steinem, G. (1992). Revolution from within: A book of self-esteem. Boston, MA: Lit-
tle, Brown and Company.
Walton, K. D. (1997). UK women at the very top: An American assessment. In
H. Eggins (Ed.), Women as leaders and managers in higher education (pp. 70–
90). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
White, B., Cox, C., & Cooper, C. (1992). Women’s career development: A study of
high flyers. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
job strain and mortality from all causes, and job strain and risk factors
for CVD (Schnall, Landsbergis, & Baker, 1994). Other studies have
investigated the impact of job strain on risk factors associated with
CVD such as high blood pressure and elevated levels of EPI and corti-
sol. In a study of nurses (Fox, Dwyer, & Ganster, 1993), it was found
that a combination of high demand and low control predicted blood
pressure and cortisol levels, while the results of another study using a
heterogeneous sample of occupations found no such relationship.
Where demands did show any type of relationship, those with lower
demands had higher blood pressure (Fletcher & Jones, 1993). However,
when one reviews studies that monitored ambulatory blood pressure, a
more sensitive measure than blood pressure taken in a clinic, five out
of nine studies showed a relationship between control and blood pres-
sure (Schnall et al.).
With respect to the impact of job strain on health in general, some
researchers have concluded that across different populations, using
different measurement methods and job designs, there is substantial
support for the hypothesis that the combined effects of high-demand,
low-control jobs lead to increased CVD (Van der Doef & Maes, 1998).
However, while Schnall et al. (1994) agreed with the preceding conclu-
sion, they also considered the separate effects of high-demand and
low-control jobs and concluded that although 17 out of 25 studies
found significant relationships between job decision latitude and out-
come, only eight out of 23 studies demonstrated significant associations
between job demand and outcome. Thus, at this point it is not possible
to draw an unequivocal conclusion. However, when the effects of job
demand and control can be separated, the data suggest that the impact
of job control may be greater than job demands. Thus, more research is
needed to clarify these relationships.
In the case of the impact of the job-demand and job-control model
on psychological well-being, there have been a number of studies. This
is due, at least in part, to the fact that while psychological distress is
important, in and of itself, it also is a mediating variable whereby work
stressors may ultimately lead to illness. According to Jones and
Fletcher (2003) there is a ‘‘plethora of research indicating that low job
control is associated with poor psychological well-being.’’ This is true
whether a measure such as the General Health Questionnaire (Gold-
berg, 1978) is used or whether specific measures of depression, anxiety,
or job satisfaction are employed (Jones & Fletcher, 2003). Results of the
studies generally suggest that the combination of high demand and
low control are associated with poor psychological well-being, and
additive effects are more numerous than moderated effects (Van der
Doef & Maes, 1998).
Knowing that people who report low levels of demand and control
also experience high levels of distress at work can be important
information for employers. However, the data are not strong enough to
warrant an assumption that the association is causal, as there are few
studies examining the job-demand-control hypothesis and the develop-
ment of psychiatric illness. However, some studies have found a rela-
tionship between low control and symptoms. Occupations associated
with lower levels of control have higher levels of depression (Mausner-
Dorsch & Eaton, 2000; Muntaner, Tien, Eaton, & Garrison, 1991). In a
study of teachers (Cropley, Steptoe, & Joekes, 1999), job strain was
linked to ‘‘neurotic disorder.’’
There also are some studies that have investigated the JCM and its
relationship to job satisfaction. A meta-analysis of the relationship
between job characteristics and job satisfaction in 28 studies found that
of all the core job characteristics, autonomy had the strongest relation-
ship to job satisfaction (Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985).
Another meta-analysis looked at perceived control in relation to 19 out-
come variables, some of which were health related. A relationship was
found between autonomy and emotional distress in addition to absen-
teeism and physical symptoms (Spector, 1986). Finally, Saavedra and
Kwun (2000) have used the JCM to predict affective states and deter-
mined that autonomy was associated with enthusiasm and they have
suggested that autonomy may relieve job dissatisfaction as well as
energize, reinforce, and maintain work behavior. Overall, the bulk of
the data suggest that there is evidence to support the hypothesis that
job control is an important variable with respect to the development of
CVD and reduced psychological well-being.
. Identify the sources of your stress and implement a personal stress man-
agement program that could include engagement in regular exercise, daily
relaxation interventions, and perhaps intermittent professional counseling
‘‘check-ups.’’
. Utilize developmental opportunities to enhance your experience and use
these developmental opportunities as a means of gaining exposure in the
organization.
. Recognize the existence of the work–home stress interaction and make
suggestions to your employer regarding flexible working arrangements.
. Creating workplace exercise facilities and options for child care because
women have less discretionary time to pursue health club memberships
and often need child care to attend an exercise program.
. Create networking groups whose purpose is to facilitate emotional
release, a sort of ‘‘self-help group therapy.’’
. Encourage or create opportunities for employees to learn stress manage-
ment techniques such as diaphragmatic breathing, progressive muscle
relaxation, meditation, or yoga.
. Engage in a regular exercise routine multiple times per week, ideally five
days out of seven.
. Engage in a daily stress management technique.
. Talk to others to engage in productive problem-solving as opposed to
obsessing and ruminating.
REFERENCES
Alehagen, S., Wijma, K., Lundberg, U., Melin, B., & Wijma, B. (2001). Catechol-
amine and cortisol response to child birth. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 8, 50–65.
Ayree, S. (1993). Dual earner couples in Singapore: An examination of work
and nonwork sources of their experienced burnout. Human Relations, 46,
1441–1468.
Levi, L. (1972). Stress and distress to psychosocial stimuli. Acta Medica Scandi-
navia Supplement, 528.
Lindfors, P., & Lundberg, U. (2002). Is low cortisol release an indicator of posi-
tive health? Stress Health, 18, 153–160.
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-
analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70(2), 280–289.
Lundberg, U. (1984). Human psychobiology in Scandinavia: II: Psychoneuroen-
docrinology-human stress and coping processes. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 25, 214–226.
Lundberg, U. (1996). The influence of paid and unpaid work on the psycho-
physiological stress responses of men and women. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 1, 117–130.
Lundberg, U. (2005). Stress hormones in health and illness: The roles of work
and gender. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(10), 1017–1021.
Lundberg, U., de Chateau, P., Winberg, J., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1981). Cate-
cholamine and cortisol excretion patterns in three year old children and
their parents. Journal of Human Stress, 7, 3–11.
Lundberg, U., Dohns, I. E., Melin, B., Sandsj€ o, L., Palmerud, G., Kadefors, R.,
Ekstr€om, M., & Parr, D. (1999). Psychophysiological stress responses, mus-
cle tension, neck and shoulder pain among supermarket cashiers. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 4(3), 245–255.
Lundberg, U., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1999). Stress and workload of men and
women in high ranking positions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
4, 142–151.
Lundberg, U., Hanson, U., Andersson, K., Eneroth, P., Frankenhaeuser, M., &
Hagenfeldt, K. (1983). Hirsute women with elevated androgen levels: Psy-
chological characteristics, steroid hormones and catecholamines. Journal of
Psychosomatics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2(2), 86–93.
Lundberg, U., & Hellstrom (2002). Workload and morning salivary cortisol in
women. Work Stress, 16, 356–363.
Lundberg, U., & Johansson, J. (2000). Stress and health risks in repetitive work
and supervisory monitoring work. In R. Backs & W. Boucsein (Eds.), Engi-
neering psychophysiology: Issues and applications (pp. 339–359). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lundberg, U., & Lindfors, P. (2002). Psychophysiological reactions to telework
in female and male white-collar workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 7(4), 354–364.
Lundberg, U., Mårdberg, B., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1994). The total work-
load of male and female white collar workers as related to age, occupa-
tional level and number of children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
35, 315–327.
Lundberg, U., & Palm, K. (1989). Total workload and catecholamine excretion
of families with preschool children. Work Stress, 3, 255–260.
Lyness, S. A. (1993). Predictors of differences between Type A and B individu-
als in heart rate and blood pressure reactivity. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
266–295.
Mattiasson, L., Lindgarden, F., Nilsson, J. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Threat of
unemployment and cardiovascular risk factors: Longitudinal study of
Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (2000). Affective states in job characteristics theory.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 131–146.
Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2000). Accuracy or consequential validity: Which
is the better standard for job analysis data? Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 21, 809–818.
Sapolsky, R. (1996). Why stress is bad for your brain. Science, 273, 749–750.
Sawatzky, J. V. (1996). Stress in critical care nurses: Actual and perceived. Heart
& Lung, 25, 409–417.
Schnall, P. L., Landsbergis, P. A., & Baker, D. (1994). Job strain and cardiovas-
cular health. Annual Review of Public Health, 15, 361–411.
Schwartz, J. E., Pickering, T. G., & Landsbergis, P. A. (1996). Work-related
stress and blood pressure: Current theoretical models and considerations
from a behavioral medicine perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 1, 287–310.
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shirom, A. (2003). The effects of work stress on health. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A.
M. Winnubst, & G. L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psy-
chology (pp. 63–82). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Shirom, A., Westman, M., Shamai, O., & Carel, R. S. (1997). Effects of workload
and burnout on cholesterol and triglyceride levels: The moderating effects
of emotional reactivity among male and female employees. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 2(4), 275–288.
Siegrist, J., Matschinger, H., Cremer, P., & Seidel, D. (1988). Atherogenic risk in
men suffering from occupational stress. Atherosclerosis, 69, 211–218.
Skov, T., Borg, V., & Orhede, E. (1996). Psychosocial and physical risk factors
for musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, shoulders, and lower back in
salespeople. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(5), 351–356.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of stud-
ies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations,
39(11), 1005–1116.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job characteristics from multiple
data sources with employee affect, absence, turnover intentions, and
health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 46–53.
Stoney, C. M., Bausserman, L., Niaura, R., Marcus, B., & Flynn, M. (1999). Lipid
reactivity to stress: II. Biological and behavioral influences. Health Psychol-
ogy, 18, 251–261.
Stoney, C. M., Niaura, R., Bausserman, L., & Matacin, M. (1999). Lipid reactiv-
ity to stress: I. Comparison of chronic and acute stress responses in mid-
dle-aged airline pilots. Health Psychology, 18, 241–250.
Strike, P. C., & Steptoe, A. (2004). Psychosocial factors in the development of
coronary artery disease. Progress in Cardiovascular Disease, 46, 337–347.
Suls, J., Wan, C. K., & Costa, Jr., P. T. (1995). Relationship of trait anger to rest-
ing blood pressure: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 14, 444–456.
Terry, D. J., & Jimmieson, N. L. (1999). Work control and employee well-being:
A decade review. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, 14, 95–148.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1998). The job demand-control (-support) model
and physical outcomes: A review of the strain and buffer hypotheses. Psy-
chology and Health, 13, 909–936.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model
and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research.
Work and Stress, 13(2), 87–114.
Waldron, I. (1991). Effects of labour force participation on sex differences
in mortality and morbidity. In M. Frankenhaeuser, U. Lundberg, &
M. Chesney (Eds.), Women, work and health: Stress opportunities (pp. 17–38).
New York: Plenum.
Wall, T. D., Clegg, C. W., & Jackson, P. R. (1978). An evaluation of the job char-
acteristics model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51, 183–196.
Wall, T. D., Corbett, J. M., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., & Martin, R. (1990).
Advanced manufacturing technology and work design: Towards a theoret-
ical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 201–219.
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of au-
tonomous work groups: A long term field experiment. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 29, 280–304.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment and mental health. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Weidner, G., Boughal, T., Connor, S. L., Pieper, C., & Mendell, N. R. (1997).
Relationship of job strain to standard coronary risk factors and psychologi-
cal characteristics in women and men of the family heart study. Health Psy-
chology, 16, 239–247.
Yehuda, R., Teicher, M. H., Trestman, R. A., Levengood, R. A., & Siever, L. J.
(1996). Cortisol regulation in posttraumatic stress disorder and major
depression: A chronobiological analysis. Biological Psychiatry, 40, 79–88.
Yeung, A. C., Vekshtein, V. I., & Krantz, D. S. (1991). The effect of atherosclero-
sis on the vasomotor response of coronary arteries to mental stress. New
England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1551–1556.
Preparing to Be Employed:
In My Own Voice
Christa White
with certain aspects of the academic life. One professor once told my
psychology class on the first day that not all of us would get A’s. I
wondered how she knew that on the first day. It turns out that she
made sure that there was always a perfect bell curve with every grad-
ing period so that she would not be addressed by superiors for being
too easy or too hard. It seemed more important that she appear legiti-
mate in the eyes of the administration rather than to work with each
student to ensure success. I found it frustrating that a professor whom
I initially entrusted to provide me with a valuable learning experience
spent more time missing class herself and setting rules to disallow any
possible cheating that could take place. My teachers in high school
seemed to have more faith in me as a student than this particular col-
lege professor.
Another setback in my academic experiences has been the lack of
courses available specifically in the department of my major, psychol-
ogy. Finding that I was nearly done with the requirements for my
major during the middle of my third year, I wondered where I would
spend my time for the remainder of my college credits. An under-
staffed department was unable to offer courses that had been previ-
ously set up as electives, and as a result there was a slim selection of
courses. One professor who has graciously worked with me along the
way suggested that I take on a program in the graduate school that
had to do with human resources. I was thrilled that such an opportu-
nity was available; it seemed as though I would be able to graduate
having an added benefit to give me an edge upon graduation—both
because I would have added experience in a particular study and
because I would be more confident about entering the workforce in an
area that I would specifically desire. However, the school administra-
tion soon turned me down, with hardly an explanation. They were
sorry that I didn’t understand, and would I please stop inquiring about
the situation. This was one of the most upsetting setbacks during my
academic experience because it seemed as though I was being denied a
valuable opportunity for no justifiable reason.
However, despite these obstacles in my academic life, I have had a
few professors in my college career who have helped me learn a little
bit of what I want out of life after college. In terms of work, it seems
that it’s becoming less of a man’s world than it used to be. Women are
now receiving more benefits than before, thanks to research that shows
that successful integration of work and family life benefits both the
employee as well as the employer than if such benefits were otherwise
not offered.
For example, direct services offered by companies are important fac-
tors in the workforce. On-site health services and fitness centers would
ensure a healthy experience for me and therefore a more successful
work experience. Culture change strategies where there is training for
managers and others to help deal with work and life conflicts, as well
as the focus of quality work and not quantity, also seem to be important
factors to consider as a young woman attempting to enter the workforce
for the first time. Although I’m not yet at the place of marriage and
family, it’s important that companies understand information-based
strategies in terms of giving information to employees about child care,
and so on, and further accommodating childbirth leave and child-care
options. Again, although this does not directly and immediately concern
me, it’s important to me that companies are accommodating and under-
standing in these ways, because it shows the value that they place on
their employees. If companies understand the importance of work and
life integration, it seems that we are all in the right place.
Over the last 25 years, scholars from a variety of disciplines (e.g., psy-
chology, social work, women’s studies) and a wide range of nations
have documented the devastating impact of sexual harassment on the
health and well-being of girls and women. This chapter provides an
overview of the literature and research on one aspect of the harm of
sexual harassment: its effect on women’s and girls’ mental health. We
begin the chapter with a brief explanation of the laws that cover sexual
harassment for both the workplace (Title VII) and educational environ-
ments (Title IX). Given that sexual harassment was first introduced as
a form of employment discrimination, the chapter will begin by sum-
marizing the research on the mental health effects of workplace harass-
ment and then move on to harassment in university and K–12
education environments.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)) pro-
vides the principal framework prohibiting discrimination on the basis
of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. In 1980 the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defined sexual harass-
ment as a form of sex discrimination and issued specific guidelines to
prohibit it. Six years later, the U.S. Supreme Court further refined the
law by specifying two categories of sexual harassment: hostile environ-
ment and quid pro quo (EEOC, 2000). Hostile environment is applicable
when the behavior of one or more people (not only a supervisor)
causes the workplace to become sexually abusive, intimidating, or
offensive and interferes with an employee’s job. Quid pro quo applies
when a person in a power position (e.g., a supervisor) makes decisions
that affect an employee’s job, on the basis of whether the employee
complies with his or her sexual demands.
Title VII set the stage for Title IX, which was signed into law in 1972
and states: ‘‘No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex,
be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be sub-
jected to discrimination under any educational program or activity
receiving federal assistance’’ (Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Using language that is similar to
Title VII, the U.S. Department of Education defines sexual harassment
under Title IX as
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal,
nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature by an employee, by
another student, or by a third party, that is sufficiently severe, persistent,
or pervasive to limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from
an education program or activity, or to create a hostile or abusive educa-
tional environment. (Department of Education, 1997, p. 12038)
Both Title VII and Title IX protect women and men from sex discrimi-
nation in education and the workplace. However, although sex dis-
crimination can occur to either males or females, sexual harassment
has had the distinction of being more problematic to women and girls.
found that targets of harassment in both samples had lower life satisfac-
tion, poorer mental health, and more symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) than other women did (Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald,
1997). Additionally, their analyses revealed that even low levels of (or low
exposure to) sexual harassment produced negative health outcomes or, in
their own words, ‘‘harassment apparently does not have to be particularly
egregious to result in negative consequences’’ (p. 412). Indicators of men-
tal stress that were used by Richman and her colleagues—excessive drink-
ing (both drinking as an escape and drinking to intoxication) and
prescription drug use were significant outcomes of sexual harassment
among university staff members (Richman et al., 1999). Negative body
image and eating disorders were also found to be a consequence of sexual
harassment among college students (Harned, 2000).
Though women’s self-reports of depression and stress symptoms
resembling post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS) have appeared fre-
quently in the research literature, the clinical dimensions of these prob-
lems were not formally documented until the mid-1990s. Researchers
at the Medical University of South Carolina developed survey items
for PTSS using Diagnostic Statistical Manual III-Revised (DSM-III-R)
criteria in a national sample of more than 3,000 women. When com-
pared to women who had not experienced harassment, victims—in
particular, those whose experiences met EEOC criteria—were at an
increased risk of PTSD and/or depression (Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997).
The relationships between harassment and PTSD were explored further
by Avina and O’Donohue (2002). They argued that a number of harass-
ing experiences can fit the DSM-IV criteria as probable causes because
they pose a threat to physical integrity—specifically, by threatening the
target’s financial well-being, threatening her physical boundaries,
and/or threatening the victim’s control over situations that she should
be able to control (p. 73).
Male Domination
Research over the last quarter century provides compelling evidence
that women in nontraditional jobs experience more frequent and severe
harassment than other working women. Part of the reason for this, as
Kanter (1977) has demonstrated, is because of highly skewed sex ratios.
In addition, there is a significant minority of occupations where a
skewed gender imbalance (numerical dominance) is coupled with occu-
pational roles and norms that reinforce traditional, sexist masculine
values and perspectives (normative dominance). A survey of military
personnel found that more than two-thirds of the women had been
harassed (Bastian, Lancaster, & Reyst, 1996). Similarly, women working
in other male-dominated occupations like policing and firefighting
have significantly higher rates of harassment than their counterparts in
other public sector jobs (Brown, Campbell, & Fife-Schaw, 1995; LA
Commission on Women, 1992).
Similar problems have been found for women in nontraditional
fields on college campuses (e.g., Paludi, 1991). Women students and
high job status (Gruber & Bjorn, 1986) or a feminist orientation (Gruber
& Smith, 1995) are more apt to respond assertively to their harassers than
other women. Also, women who have social support, either in the work-
place through positive collegial relationships or outside of work through
networks of family and friends, are able to buffer some of the potentially
damaging effects of harassment to their well-being. Kauppinen and
Gruber (1993), for instance, found that friendly, cooperative relationships
with coworkers protected women in nontraditional jobs from some of the
psychological distress that troubled other women. More recently, Reder-
storff, Buchanan, and Settles (2007) found that a feminist orientation buf-
fered White sexually harassed college students from post-traumatic
stress. However, this was not the case for African-American students.
Conventional wisdom suggests that women should deal with harass-
ment by confronting the harasser or reporting him to their superiors.
The implied assumption is that women who don’t take such action
have personality problems. While having significant personal resources
may encourage women to respond assertively to their harassers, these
strategies have a low ‘‘success’’ rate. A number of studies have docu-
mented the fact that responding assertively (confronting the harasser
or reporting his behavior) often makes matters worse by prompting
more harassment and/or retaliation (Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995).
So, while providing emotional and social support to targets of sexual
harassment is highly commendable, we should be cautious in urging
them to take matters into their own hands. There are numerous contin-
gencies that affect the outcomes of harassment situations (e.g., organi-
zational policies, attitudes of supervisors, procedures for investigating
and resolving complaints) that may either undermine women’s
attempts to stop the harassment or help them resolve the problem.
Researchers, for the most part, have not examined the effects of sex-
ual harassment on adult personnel employed in K–12 school environ-
ments, and, unlike the body of research regarding mental and physical
health outcomes for adults in various types of work environments,
only a few studies have examined mental and physical health out-
comes for children in schools. This is especially the case for young
(K–6) students. Most of the information on sexual harassment experien-
ces and outcomes has come from a small number of case studies that
have garnered media attention and/or been litigated. Because of this,
our discussion focuses on middle and high school students.
Sexual harassment that occurs in schools is primarily peer to peer,
although the American Association of University Women (AAUW)
(1993, 2001) estimated that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 10 boys has been har-
assed by school personnel (teacher, coach, school bus driver, etc.). Lee,
Croninger, Linn, and Chen (1996), in a re-analysis of the 1993 AAUW,
found that 16% of students had been harassed by a teacher (girls, 20%;
boys, 8%) and 44% by other school personnel (girls, 48%; boys, 37%).
However, unlike studies on adult women where degree of threat or
harm has been examined on the basis of how much power a harasser
has over his target, no studies have examined differential effects of
adult-to-student as opposed to student-to-student harassment.
The most comprehensive reports on school sexual harassment were
conducted by the American Association of University Women (AAUW)
in 1993 and repeated with similar results in 2001. Their most recent
report, Hostile Hallways (2001), found that 81% of students in U.S. schools
had experienced peer sexual harassment (83% female, 79% male). Other
studies on sexual harassment report similar figures: Between 50% and
88% of the students were victims (Fineran & Bennett, 1999; Fineran &
Bolen, 2006; Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW),
1995; Roscoe, Strouse, & Goodwin, 1994; Stratton & Backes, 1997; Trigg
& Wittenstrom, 1996).
Sexual harassment research to date has primarily focused on preva-
lence and situational factors (type of behavior, when and where it
occurs, student responses to it, etc.). Except for the AAUW (1993, 2001)
studies, which used a stratified random sampling technique to select a
representative sample of the U.S. student population, and the PCSW
(1995) study, where the findings can be generalized to the Connecticut
student population, the remainder of the studies used convenience
samples that constrain findings to individual schools.
Peer sexual harassment may include unwanted or unwelcome
behaviors such as making sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks;
showing sexual pictures, photographs, illustrations, messages, or notes;
writing sexual messages or graffiti on bathroom walls or locker rooms;
spreading sexual rumors; calling someone gay or lesbian in a malicious
manner; spying on someone dressing or showering at school;
frequently than boys, they also consistently answer that they found
these behaviors to be more threatening or upsetting (AAUW, 1993;
PCSW, 1995; Fineran & Bennett, 1999; Fineran & Bolen, 2006; Duffy
et al., 2004; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). Similarly, Lee et al. (1996) also
found that girls were more severely harassed than boys and had a
higher probability of experiencing more psychological problems (i.e.,
trouble sleeping or loss of appetite) than boys. Hand and Sanchez
(2000) also conducted a re-analysis of the 1993 AAUW data and found
that girls who experienced physical sexual harassment had more nega-
tive educational outcomes than boys. In addition, their analysis showed
that ‘‘girls experience qualitatively more severe, physically intrusive,
and intimidating forms of harassment than do boys’’ and that the ‘‘del-
eterious effects of physical sexual harassment were stronger for girls
than boys, across all of the measured outcomes’’ [emphasis added]
(p. 740).
Several recent studies conducted by Gruber and Fineran used a vari-
ety of scales to measure psychological outcomes of the impact of sexual
harassment on students. In one study comparing middle school and
high school girls, six outcomes (self-esteem, mental and physical
health, trauma symptoms, life satisfaction, and substance abuse) were
compared (Gruber & Fineran, 2005). Study results showed high school
girls experienced more sexual harassment and had poorer health out-
comes than their middle school peers.
In another study comparing bullying and sexual harassment victim-
ization (Gruber & Fineran, 2007), girls were particularly harmed by
both forms of victimization. Twice as many psychological outcomes for
bullying and sexual harassment were statistically significant for girls
compared with boys. Additionally, an analysis of data on 8th graders
showed sexual harassment impacted the mental health of girls more
negatively than boys, and girls reported more trauma symptoms than
boys (Fineran & Gruber, 2004). On the basis of the few outcome studies
conducted on adolescents, many of the symptoms reported by students
due to peer sexual harassment resemble symptoms experienced by
women subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace.
CONCLUSION
Millions of women and girls experience sexual harassment as a daily
part of their work and school lives, and those who are targeted experi-
ence a multitude of consequences that negatively impact their mental
health. A number of factors concerning sexual harassment appear to be
consistent globally: age of targets, types of occupations where harass-
ment occurs, ways women cope, and psychological reactions to harass-
ment. Less severe harassment behaviors (i.e., sexual remarks or
sexually offensive looks or gestures) appear to be much more common
than more severe behaviors (i.e., sexual touching or pressure for sexual
favors), and low levels of (or low exposure to) sexual harassment pro-
duce negative reactions.
Mental health outcomes appear to be similar across age groups for
both students and employees alike. Students who experience sexual
harassment in schools and universities have similar outcomes as
women who experience sexual harassment on the job. Overall, research
overwhelmingly demonstrates that sexual harassment has a major
impact on women and girls’ psychological well-being and mental
health, and that schools, universities, and the workplace have responsi-
bility for making these environments safe and nondiscriminatory.
REFERENCES
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (1993).
Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America’s school
(Research Rep. No. 923012). Washington, DC: Harris/Scholastic Research.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (2001).
Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing and sexual harassment in school. Washing-
ton, DC.
Avina, C., & O’Donohue, W. (2002). Sexual harassment and PTSD: Is sexual
harassment diagnosable trauma? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 69–75.
Bastian, L., Lancaster, A., & Reyst, H. (1996). The Department of Defense 1995 sex-
ual harassment survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bowen, G., & Richman, J. (1995). The school success profile. Chapel Hill: Univer-
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Brown, J., Campbell, E., & Fife-Schaw, C. (1995). Adverse effects experienced
by police officers following exposure to sex discrimination and sexual har-
assment. Stress Medicine, 11, 221–228.
Canadian Human Rights Commission (1983). Unwanted sexual attention and sex-
ual harassment. Montreal: Minister of Supply and Services of Canada.
Commission on the Status of Women (1992). Report on the City of Los Angeles
1992 sexual harassment survey. Los Angeles, CA: The City of Los Angeles.
Cortina, L., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harassment and
assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 22, 419–441.
Crull, P. (1982). Stress effects of sexual harassment on the job: Implications for
counseling. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 539–543.
Dansky, B. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1997). Effects of sexual harassment. In
W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment
(pp. 152–174). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (March 13, 1997). Sexual har-
assment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other stu-
dents, or third parties. Federal Register, 62(49), 12034–12051.
DeSouza, E. R., & Ribeiro, J. (2005). Bullying and sexual harassment among
Brazilian high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(9), 1018–
1038.
DeSouza, E. R., & Solberg, J. (2003) Incidence and dimensions of sexual harass-
ment across cultures. In M. Paludi, & C. Paludi (Eds.), Academic and work-
place sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and
legal perspectives (pp. 3–30). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Duffy, J., Wareham, S., & Walsh, M. (2004). Psychological consequences for
high school students of having been sexually harassed. Sex Roles, 50(11–
12), 811–821.
Dyregrov, A., & Yule, W. (1995, November). Screening measures: The development
of the UNICEF screening battery. Presented at the annual meeting of the
International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies, Boston, Massachusetts.
Dzeich, B., & Weiner, L. (1984). The lecherous professor: Sexual harassment on cam-
pus. Boston: Beacon Press.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1980). Guidelines on discrimination
because of sex, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11.
Fineran, S. (2001). Sexual minority students and peer sexual harassment in high
school. Journal of School Social Work 11(2), 50–69.
Fineran, S. (2002a). Adolescents at work: Gender issues and sexual harassment.
Violence Against Women, 8, 953–967.
Fineran, S. (2002b). Sexual harassment and students with disabilities. Paper pre-
sented at the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Washington, DC.
Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1999). Gender and power issues of peer sexual har-
assment among teenagers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6), 626–641.
Fineran, S., & Bolen, R. M. (2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in
schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1169–1190.
Fineran, S., & Gruber, J. E. (2004, January). The impact of sexual harassment vic-
timization on the mental and physical health and coping responses of 8th grade
students. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Conference Society for Social
Work and Research, New Orleans, LA.
Fineran, S., & Gruber, J. E. (2005, August). Sexual harassment of working teens.
Paper presented at the International Coalition Against Sexual Harassment
Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Fineran, S., & Gruber, J. E. (2006, January). Bullying and sexual harassment: A
comparison of the effects on victimization on the mental and physical health and
coping responses of students in junior high and high school. Paper presented at
the 11th Annual Conference Society for Social Work and Research, San
Antonio, TX.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S., Baily, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y.,
Ormerod, A. J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of
Hesson-McInnis, H., & Fitzgerald, L. (1992). Modeling sexual harassment. Paper pre-
sented at the APA/NIOSH Conference on Stress in the 90’s. Washington, DC.
Hogbacka, R., Kandolin, I., Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kauppinen, K. (1987). Sexual
harassment in the workplace: Results of a survey of Finns. Helsinki: Ministry of
Social Affairs: Equality Reports, Series E.
Huerta, M., Cortina, L., Pang, J., Torges, C., & Magley, V. (2006). Sex and
power in the academy: Modeling sexual harassment in the lives of college
women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 616–628.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kauppinen, K., & Gruber, J. (1993). The antecedents and outcomes of women-
unfriendly behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 431–456.
Kauppinen, K., & Patoluoto, S. (2005). Sexual harassment and violence toward
police women in Finland. In J. Gruber & P. Morgan (Eds.), In the company
of men: Male dominance & sexual harassment (pp. 195–214). Boston: North-
eastern University Press.
Kohn, M. (1990). Unresolved issues in the relationship between work and per-
sonality. In K. Erikson and S. Vallas (Eds.), The nature of work (pp. 36–68).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., Linn, E., & Chen, X. (1996). The culture of sexual
harassment in secondary schools. American Educational Research Journal,
33(2), 383–417.
MacIntyre, D. (1982). Sexual harassment in government: The situation in Florida and
the nation. Tallahassee: Florida State University.
MacKinnon, C. (1979). The sexual harassment of working women. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Magley, V., Waldo, C., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. (1999). The impact of sex-
ual harassment on military personnel: Is it the same for women and men?
Military Psychology, 11, 283–302.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2007). 2005 Massachusetts youth risk
behavior survey results. Boston, MA.
McDermot, J., Haaga, D., & Kirk, L. (2000). An evaluation of stress symptoms
associated with academic sexual harassment. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13,
397–411.
Miller, J. (1980). Individual and occupational determinants of job satisfaction.
Sociology of Work and Occupations, 7, 337–366.
Mueller, C., DeCoster, S., & Estes, B. (2001). Sexual harassment in the work-
place. Work and Occupations, 28, 411–426.
Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2000). The experience of sexual harassment
among grade-school students: Early socialization of female subordination?
Sex Roles 43(1–2), 1–17.
Niebuhr, R. (1997). Sexual harassment in the military. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.),
Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 250–262). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Paludi, M. (1991). Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (1995). In our own backyard:
Sexual harassment in Connecticut’s public high schools. Hartford, CT.
Pryor, J., LaVite, C., & Stoller, L. (1995). A social psychological analysis of sex-
ual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 42, 68–81.
Rederstorff, J., Buchanan, N., & Settles, I. (2007). The moderating roles of race
and gender-role attitudes in the relationship between sexual harassment
and psychological well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 50–61.
Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty, J. A., Fendrich, M.,
Drum, M. L., & Johnson, T. P. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized
workplace abuse among university employees: Prevalence and mental
health correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 358–363.
Richman, J., Rospenda, K., Nawyn, S., & Flaherty, J. (1997). Workplace harassment
and the self-medication of distress. Contemporary Drug Problems, 24, 179–200.
Roscoe, B., Strouse, J. S., & Goodwin, M. P. (1994). Correlates of attitudes
toward sexual harassment among early adolescents. Sex Roles, 31(9/19),
559–577.
Rousso, H., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2001). Double jeopardy: Addressing gender equity
in special education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job related and psycholog-
ical effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from
two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 401–415.
Stein, N. (1999). Classrooms and courtrooms: Facing sexual harassment in K-12
schools. New York: The Teachers Press.
Stein, N. (2007). Locating a secret problem: Sexual violence in elementary and
secondary schools. In L. O’Toole, J. Schiffman, & M. Edwards (Eds.), Gen-
der violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 323–332). New York: New
York University Press.
Stein, N., Marshall, N. L., & Tropp, L. R. (1993). Secrets in public: Sexual harass-
ment in our schools. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research
on Women.
Stratton, S., & Backes, J. (1997, February/March). Sexual harassment in North
Dakota public schools: A study of eight high schools. The High School Jour-
nal, 80, 163–172.
Stringer-Moore, D. (1982). Sexual harassment in the Seattle city workforce. Seattle:
Office for Women’s Rights.
Strauss, S., & Espeland, P. (1992). Sexual harassment and teens. Minneapolis: Free
Spirit Publishing.
Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. x 2000e (1994).
Trigg, M., & Wittenstrom, K. (1996). That’s the way the world goes: Sexual har-
assment and New Jersey teenagers. Initiatives, Special Issue: Sexual harass-
ment, 57(2) 55–65.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2000). Guidelines on dis-
crimination because of sex. Federal Register, 45, 74676–74677.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1981). Sexual harassment of federal workers:
Is it a problem? Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1987). Sexual harassment of federal workers:
An update. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1995). Sexual harassment of federal workers:
Trends progress and continuing challenges. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
Williams, J., Fitzgerald, L., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational
practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military.
Military Psychology, 11, 303–328.
sphere of economic life and other facets of so-called public life. Thus,
according to one of the grand narratives in the sociology of religion,
I think that because these women bring a deep sense that they are choos-
ing to work, that they are a first generation pioneering high-status roles
for women, they demand more from what they are doing. Unlike men,
they don’t see themselves, in most cases, of ‘‘having’’ to work in order to
‘‘have’’ an identity at all. . . . These women don’t seem to value them-
selves based on their income level. . . . They work in hopes of self-realiza-
tion and a feeling of effectiveness. When this is thwarted, the whole
enterprise of employment is open to question. (p. 195)12
All of this may be especially true for religious women because They
see their faith as more fundamental to their identity than their occupa-
tion, they see their work as serving a higher purpose, and they may
feel that their choice to enter the workforce conflicts with the tradi-
tional teachings of their faith.
Those who are religious feel deeper connections not only to their work
but also to their fellow workers. Religion connects individuals to one
another and promotes sociality (Spilka et al., 2003, p. 18f). It fosters a
sense of community and a sense of belonging to something larger than
oneself. Scholars from many fields have noted that employees—both the
religious and non-religious—increasingly see the workplace as a
communal center (Conger, 1994). This is due, in part, to the fact that
Americans spend a lot of time there. Indeed, according to Galinsky et al.
(2005), one-third of all U.S. employees can be viewed as being chronically
overworked.13 ‘‘As more Americans spend more time ‘at work,’’’ writes
Poarch, ‘‘work gradually becomes less of a one-dimensional activity and
assumes more of the concerns and activities of both private (family) and
public (social and political) life’’ (cited in Putnam, 2000, p. 86). Religious
concerns and activities should certainly be added to this list. Partly
because Americans are spending more time at work, participation in tradi-
tional forms of social association, including church, has diminished signifi-
cantly in recent decades (Putnam).14 In the past, civic organizations offered
support and provided a place for people to contribute and establish con-
nections. But as involvement in these organizations has declined, people
have brought their need for community (and spirituality) to work. As
Nash and McLennan (2001) say, ‘‘For many businesspeople, the corpora-
tion is the closest thing that they have to community after the family.’’
As indicated, an influential line of research in psychology has found
that women in general have a more communal orientation than men. To
the extent that this is true, the increased presence of women in the work-
place is likely to encourage the notion of ‘‘company as community.’’ In
fact, it opens the prospect of a revolutionary change in the nature of work
and the workplace. Fenn (2001) nicely summarizes the idea:
As women enter the labor force in increasing numbers, the very related-
ness of people to one another will make it increasingly difficult for corpo-
rations and bureaucracies to separate domains such as education and the
family, the neighborhood and the community, from the spheres of work
and politics. In fact, the increased presence of women in the areas for-
merly dominated by men may intensify pressures to put back together
areas of social life that the Western world has torn apart. . . . As the world
of work becomes feminized, relationships on the job will become con-
nected to wider possibilities, networks of relationships, and universes of
meaning. (p. 11)
I really get carried away with work. I need to put my priorities in bal-
ance, and I think a deeper spiritual life will help me do that. You can’t
wait until it’s all over to decide what’s really important. My religious
belief helps me keep the important things in mind. (p. 25)
The need to find balance in one’s life is especially pressing for work-
ing women. As Gutek (1993) makes clear, employed women face more
stressors, on average, than men, due to gender-asymmetric change in
work and family roles. Employed women face a wide variety of stres-
sors owing to the major commitments of time and energy associated
with the roles of spouse, parent, and worker.
In addition to the strain that comes from juggling multiple roles in
life, there are the day-to-day stresses associated with work. Numerous
surveys and studies indicate that occupational pressures are by far the
leading source of stress for American adults and that these pressures
have steadily increased over the past few decades. For example, accord-
ing to surveys cited by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH, p. 4f), 40% of workers report that their job is ‘‘very
or extremely stressful,’’ and one-fourth of employees view their jobs as
the number one stressor in their lives. Galinsky et al. (2005) found that,
while men work longer hours, take less vacation time, and tend to have
jobs with characteristics leading to more stress, women report having
more demanding jobs and feeling more stress. Women face a variety of
unique stressors in the workplace, related to: the social isolation that
can result from entering a male-dominated workplace or field; a sense
of being undervalued in their efforts or contributions; challenges to their
competency rooted in false stereotypes; sexual discrimination and har-
assment; and, as mentioned above, work/family conflicts. Many women
report that religion plays an important role in stress management.
Religious commitment has been tied to positive methods of coping.15
As Silverman and Pargament (1990) explain,
Spilka et al. (2003, p. 483f) indicate that three needs underlie people’s
attempts to cope: a need for meaning, based on a desire to make sense of
life events; a need to maintain one’s sense of control over life events; and
a need to maintain one’s sense of self-esteem. Religion is responsive to
all of these needs, and, hence, provides many possible ways of coping
with the stresses of life. Moreover, studies show that religion plays a sig-
nificant role, not only in coping with major negative life events—such as
death, divorce, or job loss—but also in a person’s experience with minor
stressors on a day-to-day basis (Spilka et al., p. 494). Wuthnow (1994)
found that those who regularly attend religious services face the same
sorts of psychological, emotional, interpersonal, and ethical problems as
other workers, but religious people are more likely than non-religious
people to engage in two types of activities that alleviate job-related
stress. Some of these are ‘‘religious-specific’’ activities (activities such as
praying, meditating, or seeking help from a member of the clergy) and
others are ‘‘religion-related’’ activities (activities such as talking with
friends and family, or seeing a therapist, which are encouraged by reli-
gious involvement but do not necessarily occur in a religious setting).16
Studies have consistently found that religious coping is more com-
mon among women, Blacks, the poor, and the elderly (Pargament,
1997). Pargament notes two characteristics of these groups to explain
these findings. First, these groups report higher levels of personal reli-
giousness than others—for them, religion has become a larger part of
their orienting system. Second, these groups tend to have less access to
secular resources and power in our society; so, religion may be one of
the few resources accessible to members of these groups. A number
of recent studies have linked these general findings to the experience
of women in the workplace. Bacchus and Holley (2004) found that pro-
fessional Black women utilize spirituality—particularly prayer, medita-
tion, and inspirational readings—to gain personal strength, inner
peace, and guidance and to reflect on and reappraise stressful situa-
tions in the workplace. Sullivan (2006) determined that the primary
role for faith in the workplace for very low income, urban mothers cen-
tered on coping with the stresses of low-wage service sector work.
Two-thirds of the women in her study reported that they connected
their faith with their daily lives, despite the fact that few attended
church regularly. In Sullivan’s words: ‘‘These mothers found their faith
to be a powerful tool in helping them calm down and deal produc-
tively with rude customers or difficult bosses or coworkers. Faith
helped them carry out unpleasant tasks and complete the work that
had to be accomplished’’ (p. 106).
If religion often has only a small impact on how people think about
ethics and how they conduct themselves at work, an important reason is
that the workplace itself has come to provide its own understanding of
ethics, and even more than that, its own well-established procedures that
sometimes obviate the need for ethics at all. Both of these developments
are characteristics of postindustrial society. (p. 88)
Despite their clear desire to live their faith in the workplace, these
studies have found that religious and spiritual workers are extremely
hesitant to act on it. They fear being marginalized, ridiculed, taken
advantage of, or even punished. Mitroff and Denton (1999) refer to this
as the Faustian dilemma: ‘‘On the one hand, [the employees, managers,
and executives to whom they spoke] wished fervently that they could
express more of themselves in the workplace, but they were afraid to
do so. Indeed, many of those to whom [they] talked were terrified to
do so’’ (p. 7). Nash and McLennan’s subjects came up against the same
problem:
Mitroff and Denton point out that ‘‘almost the entire set of respondents
[in their study] was unable to mention at least one organization that
they regarded as a role model in fostering spirituality’’ (p. 44). This is
an indictment of the business community at large.
As indicated, many employees cope with this dilemma by compart-
mentalizing their lives. These workers resign themselves to the fact that
they will not realize their full potential at work. This can exact a con-
siderable toll: ‘‘The individual,’’ Wolfteich (2002) writes, ‘‘lives with a
hollow feeling that one’s everyday life lacks meaning—or at least
meaning that is strongly affirmed by one’s religious tradition’’ (p. 144).
These employees work without the engagement that comes from feel-
ing that they are fully bringing themselves to what they are doing, and
this sense of alienation from their work brings great disappointment.
Part one of this chapter indicated that feminine conceptions of identity,
religion, and work suggest that religious women will have a particu-
larly strong desire to resist fragmentation in their lives. But, clearly,
prevailing cultural norms governing spirituality in the workplace have
made it immensely difficult for religious women to maintain a cohesive
sense of identity.
Commentators fault not only business leaders but also religious
leaders for their failure to provide constructive models of faith in the
contemporary workplace. This is a central theme in Nash and
McLennan (2001) and Wolfteich (2002). Despite surging interest in spi-
rituality in the workplace, the church has largely failed to respond. The
inadequacy of the clergy’s response is exemplified in a quote from one
of Nash and McLennan’s subjects: ‘‘I see many tensions between my
Christian beliefs and what I do at work, and I feel deeply responsible
PART III
As it has been interpreted by the courts, federal law addressing reli-
gion in the workplace tends to reinforce the conventional view that re-
ligion is a private matter and the workplace is a secular sphere. Title
VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) prohibits re-
ligious discrimination in private and public employment.20 The Act
also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious
beliefs and practices of an employee, unless doing so would create
an undue hardship on the employer’s business (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j)).
Under the Act, the term religion includes ‘‘all aspects of religious ob-
servance and practice, as well as belief.’’ But the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Guidelines interpret religion more
liberally: Religious beliefs include ‘‘moral or ethical beliefs as to what
is right or wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of tradi-
tional religious views’’ (29 C.F.R. § 1605.1).
PART IV
If the prevailing policy of separating religion from the workplace
fails to acknowledge that the ‘‘whole person’’ comes to work, what are
the alternatives? Are there any theoretical models for fostering spiritu-
ality in the workplace? And, if there are, what sorts of reasons are
there for organizations to adopt these models given that the law does
not require it? Is it good for business? Is it morally incumbent upon
organizations to promote the spiritual development of their workers?
As noted in this chapter’s opening, much of the literature tends to take
for granted a strict distinction between spirituality and religion (for
example, see Conger, 1994). Again, spirituality is understood to address
many of the same concerns as religion—concerns about the nature and
purpose of life, transcendence, and moral values as these all manifest
themselves in daily life. But, in contrast to conventional religion, spiritu-
ality is not formally organized or denominational; it is broadly inclusive
in accepting all ways of experiencing the sacred. Most authors take for
granted the notion that spirituality unites while religion divides, and,
behind this desire for spirituality often lurk serious ethical problems
about how employers and employees treat each other. In the end, spiritu-
ality at work does what pop psychology and management fads have
always done: It attempts to make people feel good and adapt, not
address the serious problems of power, conflict, and autonomy that make
people feel bad in the first place. (p. 222f)
The real problem is that their work zaps them of the energy, the time,
and perhaps even the will to take part in meaningful activities and com-
munities outside of work. If employers want to fill this need for some-
thing more, the answer is not a prayer meeting or a seminar on finding
your soul. They need to rethink the structure of the workplace and give
employees more time and flexibility to lead good lives outside of work
without fear of losing promotions, bonuses, or jobs. (p. 223f)
There is a good deal of truth in this analysis, but to the extent that it
suggests that spiritual and religious concerns are matters to be pursued
outside of work, it perpetuates the customary view that religion is a pri-
vate matter and the workplace is a secular domain.
What is needed in light of the discussion to this point is a frame-
work that acknowledges the significant non-instrumental value of spirit-
ual and religious expression within the workplace. A promising model
is offered by Hicks (2003), who argues that organizations have a moral
obligation to adopt a policy of ‘‘respectful pluralism.’’
The guiding principle of respectful pluralism is termed the presump-
tion of inclusion. It can be stated as follows: To the greatest extent,
workplace organizations should allow employees to express their reli-
gious, spiritual, cultural, political, and other commitments at work,
subject to the limitations of noncoercion, nondegradation, and nones-
tablishment, and in consideration of the reasonable instrumental
demands of the for-profit enterprise (p. 173).33
This framework is intended to be responsive to the circumstances of
the contemporary American workplace: It acknowledges that religious
diversity among employees is steadily growing, that religious and spir-
itual beliefs are a fundamental and inseparable part of many employ-
ees’ lives, that the workplace is increasingly becoming a public site,
that the place of religion in public life is highly contested, and that
companies are for-profit enterprises. The ultimate aim of this model is
to foster mutual respect amidst diversity in the workplace.
Hicks (2003) intentionally eschews an instrumental justification of his
principle and defends it exclusively on moral grounds. The presump-
tion of inclusion is premised on the moral values of human dignity and
respect, which, Hicks argues, entail a basic right of religious exercise.
Like other basic rights, such as the right to physical security, which
entails the right to safe working conditions, the right to religious free-
dom is part of the structure in which employment occurs. The moral
obligation to respect workers’ dignity is prior to considerations of eco-
nomic efficiency; so, the worker does not forfeit her basic rights, includ-
ing the right to religious expression, simply by entering the workplace.
‘‘The essential point is that the moral status of employees, possessing
dignity and deserving respect, builds a presumption for a high degree
of ‘personal’ expression,’’ Hicks explains (p. 173).34 There is a stark dif-
ference between the presumption of inclusion involved in respectful
pluralism and the presumption of exclusion that is tacit in the current
understanding of the workplace as a secular domain. The default
assumption of respectful pluralism is that it is legitimate for a worker
to bring her religious convictions to work, and the moral burden is on
the organization to justify policies that would limit personal expression.
Respectful pluralism does not warrant any and all expression simply
because it is religious. Just as the religious employee is entitled to dig-
nity and respect, so are others in the organization. Hence, the same
moral values that justify the presumption of inclusion also imply
several norms limiting personal expression. First, religious employees
may not illegitimately impose their religious values on others. Second,
religious employees may not employ speech or action that shows clear
disrespect for particular individuals or groups of coworkers or third par-
ties. Third, the organization as an institution may not endorse or pro-
mote any particular religious tradition, because employees from
differing religious (or secular) backgrounds may understandably feel
compelled to assent to the privileged viewpoint. Clearly, determining
whether these norms have been violated—determining whether some
instance of personal expression is coercive or degrading, or whether
some institutional policy gives preferential treatment to a particular reli-
gious outlook—will require the exercise of moral judgment.
Respectful pluralism acknowledges that, within the bounds of legal-
ity and morality, companies have a legitimate right to seek profits. This
entails the employers’ right to limit personal expression for legitimate
reasons related to efficiency, as long as they do so on an equal basis
for all employees. But the presumption of inclusion entails that costs in
efficiency would have to be significant before limits on personal
expression would be warranted. ‘‘Respectful pluralism’s approach,’’
NOTES
1. Spilka et al. (2003, p. 11) also point out that, in the current social and be-
havioral sciences, there is no commonly accepted way of distinguishing the
meaning of ‘‘spirituality’’ from that of ‘‘religion’’—indeed, some theorists
maintain that it is not possible to distinguish the two—and, hence, the use of
these terms is highly ambiguous in the literature. So, one must check what an
investigator actually measures, regardless of the investigator’s usage of these
terms, to determine what is being researched.
2. Hicks also points out that this literature tends to focus on the views and
experiences of business executives, and, to the extent that men are dispropor-
tionately represented in this group, this literature tends to focus on the views
and experiences of men.
3. Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Fogel (2000) argues that the rise
of the Religious Right is symptomatic of the ‘‘Fourth Great Awakening’’ in
American history.
4. An excellent introduction to this literature is Douglas Hicks’s Religion and the
Workplace (2003).
5. According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics
(2006), in 1970, 43% of women age 16 and older were in the labor force. By the
late 1990s, the labor force participation rate of women had risen to 60%. From
1975 to 2000, the labor force participation rate of mothers with children under
age 18 rose from 47% to 73%. Moreover, during the past several decades,
women have been increasingly employed in higher paying occupations. In
2000, half of all the workers in management, professional, and related occupa-
tions were women. The Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau (2006) notes
that in 2006 a record 67 million women were employed in the U.S., and women
comprised 46% of the total U.S. labor force.
6. Wuthnow’s analysis was based upon a very detailed survey of more
than 2,000 members of the U.S. labor force. This research was supplemented
with in-depth interviews of 175 people.
15. The definitive work in the field of religious coping is Kenneth Parga-
ment’s The Psychology of Religion and Coping (1997).
16. Those attending religious services every week were 32 points more likely
to pray or meditate to relieve feelings of stress from their job; 11 points more
likely to discuss stress with others (9 points more likely to discuss stress with
their spouses, 6 points more likely to talk to a member of the clergy, and 3
points more likely to talk with friends); 5 points less likely to come home and
watch television; and 4 points less likely to drink alcohol (p. 321).
17. According to Gallup (2006b), nearly one in three Americans say that
business executives have ‘‘low’’ or ‘‘very low’’ ethical standards.
18. An emerging body of empirical evidence supports, in varying degrees, a
positive relationship between religiousness and well-being in general (see Spilka
et al., 2003, Chapter 15; and Miller & Thoresen, 2003), and as researchers have
made advances in conceptualizing and measuring religion, some potential rea-
sons for this positive association are starting to emerge (see Hill & Pargament,
2003).
19. The author is unaware of any investigation into whether religious and
spiritual factors may play some role in the ‘‘gender/job satisfaction para-
dox’’—that is, the finding that women report levels of job satisfaction that are
comparable to and often exceed those of men, although, in objective terms,
women do not fare as well as men in the workplace.
20. The Civil Rights Act (CRA) applies to all private employers of 15 or
more persons whose business affects interstate commerce. (Virtually all states
have similar fair employment laws that reach smaller employers than does the
CRA. Many of these state laws are more stringent than federal law or address
areas not covered by federal law.) The CRA also applies to public employers
and labor unions. Religious entities are exempted from the provisions of the
CRA prohibiting hiring based on religion.
21. Note that Title VII also prohibits discrimination against atheists. So, an
employer may not refuse to hire, or fire, an individual simply because she has
no religious belief or affiliation.
22. This case is described by Cummins, H.J. (2005, August 24). Sea of faith
washing over the workplace. Star Tribune. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.
23. See Wilson v. US West Communications, 58 F. 3d 1337 (8th Cir. 1995), cit-
ing Bhatia v. Chevron, U.S.A. 734 F.2d 1382 (1984). Note that atheists can appeal
to the reasonable accommodation provision of Title VII if their rejection of reli-
gion is the source of a workplace conflict. See, for example, EEOC v. Townley
Engineering and Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988).
24. See Wilson v. US West Communications, 58 F. 3d 1337 (8th Cir. 1995).
25. See Noesen v. Med. Staffing Network, No. 06-2831 (7th Cir. 2007).
26. See McDaniel v. Essex Int’l., 696 F. 2d 34, 35 (6th Cir. 1982).
27. As in Hardison, employers often invoke the provisions of collective bar-
gaining agreements, which are enforced by federal labor laws, in refusing to
accommodate employee accommodation requests.
28. For example, in Protos v. Volkswagen of America (797 F. 2d 129 (3d. Cir.
1986)) the court refused to find undue hardship when an employee of a large
automobile manufacturer requested time off for his Sabbath, and in EEOC v.
Ilona of Hungary (198 F. 3d 1569 (7th Cir. 1997)) the court held that a beauty sa-
lon faced no undue hardship in accommodating two Jewish employees’ request
for unpaid leave to participate in Yom Kippur, even though the day the
employees requested off happened to be the busiest day of the week for the sa-
lon.
29. In the spring of 2007, the WRFA was reintroduced in the House as H.R.
1431 by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D, NY). The bill is cosponsored by 13 Repre-
sentatives. The bill currently rests in committee, where it has died every year
that it has been introduced.
30. One of the main reasons why the ADA has such a strong definition of
undue hardship is because its drafters saw how the Court had eviscerated the
religious accommodation requirement through its narrow interpretations of
Section 701(j) of Title VII.
31. Consider, for example, Fairholm (1998): ‘‘While important, the religious
nature of spirituality is not considered here. This aspect of spirituality is better
accommodated in doctrinaire religions and their social instrumentalities.
Indeed, many, including this author, would object to matters of personal reli-
gion being introduced in the workplace’’ (p. 113).
32. To be fair, although an economic mode of justification dominates their
book, Mitroff and Denton do hint at other sorts of arguments in favor of devel-
oping workplace spirituality. Although they do not explicitly say so, it seems
clear that they believe it is morally wrong for organizations to force spiritual
employees to compartmentalize their lives. (But, again, why is it not similarly
morally wrong for organizations to force religious employees to compartmental-
ize their lives?) They also suggest that fostering workplace spirituality will pro-
mote ethical organizational cultures, which benefits society more generally.
33. Respectful pluralism provides a framework for all forms of personal
expression in the workplace. This is advantageous for it does not require man-
agers to discriminate between religious, spiritual, cultural, and political expres-
sions. Consider, for example, does a ‘‘pro-life’’ button constitute religious or
political speech?
34. It seems any moral system that regards living an integrated, noncom-
partmentalized life as a fundamental moral value would support the presump-
tion of inclusion. If people should live integrated, noncompartmentalized lives,
then there is a presumption that they should be allowed to express their reli-
gious convictions in the workplace. So, while Hicks defends the presumption
of inclusion in terms of moral concepts such as ‘‘dignity,’’ ‘‘respect,’’ and
‘‘rights,’’ one could make a case for the presumption of inclusion in terms of
other moral frameworks, including Aristotelian ethics and some forms of femi-
nist ethics.
REFERENCES
American Civil Liberties Union (2005). ACLU letter to the House of Representa-
tives on the harmful effects of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Available
at: http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16256leg20050315.html.
Bacchus, D.N.A., & Holley, L. C. (2004). Spirituality as a coping resource: The
experiences of professional black women. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diver-
sity in Social Work, 13, 65–84.
Beit-Hallahmi, B., & Argyle, M. (1996). The social psychology of religion. London:
Routledge.
Bridges, R. A., & Spilka, B. (1992). Religion and the mental health of women. In
J. Schumaker (Ed.), Religion and mental health (pp. 43–53). New York: Oxford.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociol-
ogy of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ciulla, J. B. (2000). The working life: The promise and betrayal of modern work. New
York: Times Books.
Conger, J. (1994). Spirit at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cornwall, M. (1989). Faith development in men and women over the life span.
In Bahr & Peterson (Eds.), Aging and the family. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Donelson, F. E. (1999). Women’s experiences: A psychological perspective. Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield.
Eck, D. (2001). A new religious America: How a ‘‘christian country’’ has become the
most religiously diverse nation. San Francisco: Harper.
Fairholm, G. W. (1998). Perspective on leadership: From the science of management
to its spiritual heart. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Fenn, R. K. (2001). Religion and the secular; the sacred and the profane: The
scope of the argument. In R. K. Fenn (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to soci-
ology of religion (pp. 3–22). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fogel, R. W. (2000). The fourth great awakening & the future of egalitarianism. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Ford, R. T. (2005). Take God to work day: Why the law shouldn’t bend over
backwards for religious employees. Slate.com. Available at: http://slate.
com/id/2120789.
Francis, L. (1997). The psychology of gender differences in religion: A review
of empirical research. Religion, 27, 68–96.
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., Kim, S. S., Backon, L., Brownfield, E., & Sakai, K.
(2005). Overwork in America: When the way we work becomes too much, execu-
tive summary. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Gallup Poll (2006a). Religion. Available at: http://www.galluppoll.com/con-
tent/?ci¼1690&pg¼1.
Gallup Poll (2006b). Honesty and ethics in the professions. Available at: http://
www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci¼1654&pg¼1.
Gallup Poll (2007). Americans more likely to believe in God than the devil, heaven
more than hell. Available at: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/
?ci¼27877&pg¼1.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Gunther, M. (2001). God & business. Fortune, 144(1), 58–80.
Gutek, B. (1993). Asymmetric change in men’s and women’s roles. In B. Long
& S. Kahn (Eds.), Women, work, and coping: A multidisciplinary approach to
workplace stress (pp. 11–31). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hassan, R. (2003). Islam. In A. Sharma & K. Young (Eds.), Her voice, her faith:
Women speak on world religions. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hicks, D. (2003). Religion and the workplace: pluralism, spirituality, leadership. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, P., & Pargament, K. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and mea-
surement of religion and spirituality. American Psychologist, 58, 64–74.
Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to
midlife. New York: Oxford.
MENTORS
During my time at NYSDOH, I participated in the Mentor/Protege
program twice. The first time I participated as a G-16, where I worked
with a woman who was a G-18. She helped me rewrite my resume,
discuss my career goals, and ultimately referred me to my next promo-
tion to a G-18. She was a wonderful supporter and understood the
complexities of my life and the need to balance my career aspirations.
A year later, I had met with Dennis Murphy, then association director
for the division of family health. Dennis and I went to a conference
and met in the exhibition hall. We had dinner and spoke about my ca-
reer at NYSDOH. He offered to mentor me formally in the Mentor/
Protege program. We were paired and worked together for a year for-
mally. During that time, we met each month. Dennis put me in touch
with key executive staff throughout NYSDOH, including the Deputy
Commissioner Dennis Whalen (currently Secretary of Health for New
York State). These meetings were very enriching; Dennis and I met
shortly before each meeting to develop relevant interview questions and
to go over the results from my previous interview. I met with about nine
executives in total—all upper level executives. The interview questions I
chose included their early career experiences (which were of great inter-
est to me when I met with women whom I wanted to emulate), educa-
tion, growth and promotional experiences, and advice for my career.
Some meetings started rather uncomfortably, especially when the inter-
viewee thought I was there to ask for a promotion or transfer. When I
was able to explain my goals for the meeting, my questions were met
with enthusiasm, warmth, and generosity of both time and advice. These
meetings allowed me to network and to obtain information for my per-
sonal use in developing and implementing my career aspirations. To this
day, Dennis Murphy remains a mentor for me and a confidant. In
reflecting back to the development of this mentor relationship, I could
easily say that I would not have guessed that my mentor would be a
man. I will explain further in the gatekeeping section.
GATEKEEPERS
In the broadest sense, my first response when I am asked about
gatekeepers would be that they were all women. All of them were key
women in my life; however, I must say that my gatekeepers were only
obstacles for me to overcome, and never seemed impassable to me.
My mom was a single mother of two. She divorced at a time when
it was not politically correct to be divorced and wore a wedding ring
ADVICE
The very first piece of advice I would give anyone for work or oth-
erwise is that there is no such thing as luck. There is only preparation
for opportunity. I’ll have to credit Oprah with this bit of advice, which
is something I have always kept with me. Hard work, perseverance,
and preparation are key elements to success, particularly control over
your own destiny and ultimate success. Working hard at an education,
learning new job skills, or remaining open to new experiences can pro-
vide preparation and skills necessary to take advantage of unforeseen
opportunities.
Second, women should think like men. This sounds strange, but I
will explain. I mean that women tend to develop emotional attachments
to jobs and to people, which prevents them from making strategic pro-
fessional moves. Men don’t tend to make those emotional connections
and are better at making changes that benefit them professionally in
the long run.
Last, work hard to develop personal and professional networks and
do not burn bridges. You never know who will be your next boss, so
do not make enemies. And work hard to meet people and demon-
strate your potential. Interviewing for jobs even when you are not nec-
essarily in the market is a great way to make a good first impression
and develop professional ties with people outside of your immediate
work environment. Never forget that you may only have one first
impression.
INTRODUCTION
Employed women have become a driving force in our modern econ-
omy. Women’s contribution both to unpaid home services and to the
labor market has contributed to recent economic growth and is
believed to be the foundation for its future growth.
‘‘A Guide to Womenomics’’ (2006) presented several statistics concern-
ing employed women. For example, in developed economies, women pro-
duce just under 40% of the official gross domestic product (GDP). If the
value of the domestic services at home is estimated and added to their
contribution, however, ‘‘then women probably produce slightly more than
half of total output’’ (p. 73). The GDP is a way for measuring the size of
the country’s economy. It is defined as the market value of all final goods
and services produced within a country in a given period of time. The
Economist (2006) also noted that women’s importance is not limited to
goods and homecare but also as ‘‘consumers, entrepreneurs, managers
and investors.’’ Women make about 80% of the buying decisions in areas
such as housing, furniture, food, and health care. Furthermore, Catalyst
(2007) reported that American companies with more women in senior
management jobs earned a higher return on equity than those with fewer
women in top managerial positions.
In this chapter, we discuss women’s contribution to the economy.
We begin with a general description of women’s participation in the
workforce and its contribution to productivity and GDP growth. We
then investigate the income gender gap and its harmful consequences.
Finally, we discuss women’s contribution to long-term economic growth.
Table 10.1
U.S. labor force 16 years and 1950–2006
Men Women
Countries 1973 1983 1990 2000 2005 2006 1973 1983 1990 2000 2005 2006
Australia 91.1 85.9 85.9 82.0 82.7 82.9 47.7 52.1 62.1 65.5 68.4 69.0
Austria 83.0 82.2 80.1 80.1 79.3 80.4 48.5 49.7 55.4 62.5 65.6 67.0
Belgium 83.2 76.8 72.7 73.8 73.1 72.7 41.3 48.7 52.4 56.6 59.5 58.9
Canada 86.1 88.5 84.9 83.1 82.5 82.2 47.2 62.2 68.1 70.5 73.1 73.5
Denmark 89.6 87.6 89.6 84.0 83.6 83.4 61.9 74.2 78.4 75.9 75.1 76.7
Finland 80.0 82.0 80.6 76.5 75.7 76.2 63.9 72.7 72.9 72.0 72.9 73.2
Francea 85.2 78.4 74.6 74.4 74.5 74.2 50.1 54.3 56.6 61.7 63.8 63.9
Germanya 89.6 82.6 80.8 81.1 80.6 81.4 50.3 52.5 57.0 63.2 66.9 68.5
Greece 83.2 80.0 82.1 77.1 79.2 79.1 32.1 40.4 39.9 49.7 54.6 55.0
Ireland 92.3 87.1 82.2 79.1 79.9 81.0 34.1 37.8 38.9 55.7 60.3 61.3
Italy 85.1 80.7 78.9 73.8 74.4 74.6 33.7 40.3 44.5 46.2 50.4 50.8
Japan 90.1 89.1 87.8 85.2 84.4 84.8 54.0 57.2 60.4 59.6 60.8 61.3
Luxembourg 93.1 85.1 95.1 76.4 76.0 NA 35.9 41.7 50.5 51.7 57.0 NA
Netherlands 85.6 77.3 79.9 83.9 81.4 81.9 29.2 40.3 53.0 65.7 68.6 69.4
New Zealand 89.2 84.7 82.2 83.2 84.4 85.1 39.2 45.7 62.1 67.5 70.8 71.4
Norwayb 86.5 87.2 84.5 84.8 82.3 81.4 50.6 65.5 71.2 76.5 75.4 74.8
Portugal NA 86.9 86.1 78.8 79.0 79.5 NA 56.7 61.3 63.6 67.9 68.4
Spainc 92.9 80.5 76.8 79.1 82.2 82.5 33.4 33.3 40.9 51.8 59.1 61.1
Swedenb 88.1 85.9 85.3 81.2 82.5 82.6 62.6 76.6 81.1 76.4 77.7 77.7
Switzerland 100.0 93.5 96.2 89.4 87.4 87.8 54.1 55.2 59.2 73.9 74.3 74.7
United Kingdomb 93.0 87.5 86.5 84.3 83.0 83.2 53.2 57.2 67.4 68.9 69.6 70.3
United States 86.2 84.7 85.8 83.9 81.8 81.9 51.1 61.9 68.2 70.8 69.2 69.3
OECD Europec 88.7 82.3 80.6 78.0 77.9 78.0 44.7 49.8 53.5 60.2 58.1 58.6
Total OECDc 88.2 84.4 83.7 81.1 80.3 80.4 48.3 55.2 60.0 61.3 60.4 60.8
a
Data for 2006 are Secretariat estimates obtained by applying changes between 2005 and 2006 estimates from the European Labour Force
Survey to national estimates for 2005.
b
Refers to persons age 16 to 64.
c
For data under 2000, 2005, and 2006, OECD Europe also includes Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, and Slovak Republic.
Source: OECD Employment Outlook Statistical Annex, 1996, 2001, and 2007.
© 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.
Table 10.3
Employment/population ratio by sex 15 – 64 years (percentages)
Men Women
Countries 1973 1983 1990 2000 2005 2006 1973 1983 1990 2000 2005 2006
Australia 89.9 77.5 80.3 76.6 78.5 78.8 46.4 47.0 58.0 61.6 64.7 65.5
Austria 82.4 79.4 77.7 76.2 75.4 76.9 47.7 47.1 53.5 59.7 62.0 63.5
Belgium 81.6 69.2 68.4 69.8 67.7 67.0 39.9 39.8 45.7 51.9 54.1 53.6
Canada 81.9 77.8 82.3 76.3 76.7 76.8 44.1 55.0 65.1 65.8 68.3 69.0
Denmark 89.0 78.3 82.7 80.7 80.1 80.6 61.2 65.0 71.4 72.1 70.8 73.2
Finland 78.1 77.4 77.4 69.4 69.4 70.5 62.3 69.0 70.8 64.5 66.5 67.3
Francea 83.8 73.4 70.3 68.1 67.8 67.5 47.9 48.3 50.9 54.3 56.9 57.1
Germanya 88.8 76.6 76.1 74.8 71.4 72.9 49.7 47.8 53.2 57.7 59.6 61.5
Greece 81.8 75.3 71.7 71.3 74.5 74.6 31.2 35.6 38.5 41.3 46.2 47.5
Ireland 86.5 73.8 69.5 75.6 76.2 77.3 32.8 33.6 35.0 53.3 58.0 58.8
Italy 81.6 75.7 73.7 67.6 69.7 70.5 29.9 34.2 37.9 39.3 45.3 46.3
Japan 88.8 86.7 86.1 81.0 80.4 81.0 53.4 55.7 59.1 56.7 58.1 58.8
Luxembourg 93.1 84.0 76.8 75.0 73.3 NA 35.9 40.9 43.9 50.0 53.7 NA
Netherlands 83.5 69.1 75.5 82.1 77.4 78.7 28.6 34.7 47.4 63.4 64.8 66.0
New Zealand 89.1 80.3 76.7 78.0 81.5 82.1 39.1 42.8 58.3 63.5 68.0 68.4
Norwayb 85.6 84.4 79.8 81.5 78.3 78.6 49.3 63.0 67.8 74.0 72.0 72.3
Portugal 99.2 82.8 86.1 76.2 73.4 73.9 30.5 49.8 58.8 60.4 61.7 62.0
Spainb 90.5 67.9 68.4 71.4 76.4 77.3 32.5 26.5 31.4 41.1 51.9 54.0
Swedenb 86.2 83.0 83.0 76.1 75.9 76.8 60.8 73.9 78.8 72.3 71.8 72.1
Switzerland 100.0 92.7 95.7 87.3 83.9 84.7 54.1 54.7 59.3 71.6 70.4 71.1
United Kingdomb 90.3 75.9 80.3 79.1 78.8 78.4 52.7 52.6 63.4 65.5 66.7 66.8
United States 82.8 76.5 81.2 80.6 77.6 78.1 48.0 56.2 64.9 67.9 65.6 66.1
OECD Europec 86.7 75.2 75.4 72.0 71.2 71.8 43.2 44.4 48.1 53.9 52.3 53.2
Total OECDc 85.8 77.6 79.1 76.3 75.0 75.6 46.4 50.3 55.6 57.1 56.1 56.8
a
Data for 2006 are Secretariat estimates obtained by applying changes between 2005 and 2006 estimates from the European Labour Force
Survey to national estimates for 2005.
b
Refers to persons age 16 to 64.
c
For data under 2000, 2005, and 2006, OECD Europe also includes Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, and Slovak Republic.
Source: OECD Employment Outlook Statistical Annex, 1996, 2001, and 2007.
© 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.
Society’s Gains 153
Table 10.4
U.S. labor force 16 years and over 1950–2006, %
Male Female
Year Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time
job sharing, telecommuting, and other flexible job designs (Paludi &
Neidermeyer, 2007). In 2006, there were more than 100,000 customer-
service representatives who worked from home. As Naylor (2006)
observed, ‘‘in the face of political pressures and customer backlash,
many companies are bringing call center operations back from over-
seas.’’ Hence, the number of part-time jobs is predicted to exceed
300,000 by 2010. The flexibility of the home-based jobs will certainly
encourage more women’s participation in the labor market.
Women
Elementary/secondary College
High school
Less 9th to 12th graduate Some
than 9th Grade (no (includes college, no Associate Bachelor Master Professional Doctorate
Year grade diploma) equivalency) degree degree degree degree degree degree
1991 733 1,819 10,936 5,621 2,523 5,251 2,022 311 206
1992 733 1,653 11,026 5,903 2,651 5,599 2,192 334 225
1993 764 1,576 10,505 6,276 3,061 5,733 2,166 323 260
1994 694 1,675 10,777 6,254 3,210 5,897 2,173 398 283
1995 774 1,760 11,059 6,328 6,334 6,432 2,268 421 283
1996 750 1,751 11,358 6,574 3,468 6,686 2,213 413 322
1997 791 1,761 11,470 6,628 3,536 7,172 2,447 488 318
1998 814 1,876 11,605 7,067 3,527 7,276 2,639 468 329
1999 905 1,921 11,984 7,524 3,844 7,712 2,857 479 353
2000 934 1,964 11,801 7,534 4,231 7,869 2,865 499 364
2001 927 1,869 11,686 7,281 4,190 8,253 3,089 531 392
2002 857 1,840 11,673 7,353 4,281 8,226 3,281 572 402
2003 876 1,738 11,586 7,340 4,397 8,327 3,376 567 462
2004 916 1,797 11,395 7,341 4,492 8,683 3,467 532 453
2005 900 1,736 11,412 7,451 4,751 9,072 3,589 657 437
continued
Men
Elementary/secondary College
High school
Less 9th to 12th graduate Some
than 9th Grade (no (includes college, no Associate Bachelor Master Professional Doctorate
Year grade diploma) equivalency) degree degree degree degree degree degree
1991 1,807 3,083 15,022 8,034 2,899 8,455 3,073 1,147 674
1992 1,815 3,009 14,722 8,066 3,203 8,719 3,178 1,295 745
1993 1,790 3,083 14,599 8,490 3,555 9,178 3,131 1,231 808
156
1994 1,895 3,057 15,097 8,783 3,735 9,636 3,225 1,258 868
1995 1,944 3,335 43,3351 8,908 3,926 9,597 3,395 1,208 853
1996 2,041 3,440 15,838 9,172 3,931 9,898 3,272 1,277 893
1997 1,914 3,548 16,220 9,169 4,086 10,349 3,228 1,321 966
1998 1,870 3,613 16,442 9,375 4,347 11,058 3,414 1,264 998
1999 2,095 3,407 16,797 9,786 3,398 11,253 3,783 1,291 1,033
2000 2,159 3,476 16,735 9,837 4,813 11,654 3,788 1,268 1,086
2001 2,207 3,503 16,314 9,492 4,714 11,29 3,961 1,298 1,041
2002 2,154 3,677 16,002 9,603 4,399 11,829 4,065 1,308 1,065
2003 2,209 3,366 16,283 9,337 4,696 11,846 4,124 1,348 1,037
2004 2,427 3,464 17,052 9,255 4,906 11,705 4,244 1,308 1,090
2005 2,425 3,651 17,258 9,532 5,020 12,032 4,275 1,369 1,144
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Houshold Economic Statistics Division.
Women
Elementary/secondary College
High school
Less 9th to 12th graduate Some
than 9th Grade (no (includes college, no Associate Bachelor Master Professional Doctorate
Year grade diploma) equivalency) degree degree degree degree degree degree
1991 2.5 6.2 37.2 18.6 8.6 17.8 6.9 1.1 0.7
1992 2.4 5.5 36.4 19.5 8.7 18.5 7.2 1.1 0.7
157
1993 2.5 5.1 34.3 20.5 10.0 18.7 7.1 1.1 0.8
1994 2.2 5.3 34.4 19.9 10.2 18.8 6.9 1.3 0.9
1995 2.2 4.9 31.0 17.7 17.8 18.0 6.4 1.2 0.8
1996 2.2 5.2 33.9 19.6 10.3 19.9 6.6 1.2 1.0
1997 2.3 5.1 33.1 19.1 10.2 20.7 7.1 1.4 0.9
1998 2.3 5.3 32.6 19.9 9.9 20.4 7.4 1.3 0.9
1999 2.4 5.1 31.9 20.0 10.2 20.5 7.6 1.3 0.9
2000 2.5 5.2 31.0 19.8 11.1 20.7 7.5 1.3 1.0
2001 2.4 4.9 30.6 30.6 11.0 21.6 8.1 1.4 1.0
2002 2.2 4.8 30.3 19.1 11.1 21.4 8.5 1.5 1.0
2003 2.3 4.5 30.0 19.0 11.4 21.5 8.7 1.5 1.2
2004 2.3 4.6 29.2 18.8 11.5 22.2 8.9 1.4 1.2
2005 2.2 4.3 28.5 18.6 11.9 22.7 9.0 1.6 1.1
continued
Men
Elementary/secondary College
High school
Less 9th to 12th graduate Some
than 9th Grade (no (includes college, no Associate Bachelor Master Professional Doctorate
Year grade diploma) equivalency) degree degree degree degree degree degree
1991 4.1 7.0 34.0 18.2 6.6 19.1 7.0 2.6 1.5
1992 4.1 6.7 32.9 18.0 7.2 19.5 7.1 2.9 1.7
1993 3.9 6.7 31.8 18.5 7.8 20.0 6.8 2.7 1.8
1994 4.0 6.4 31.7 18.5 7.9 20.3 6.8 2.6 1.8
1995 4.0 6.9 31.6 18.4 8.1 19.8 7.0 2.5 1.8
1996 4.1 6.9 31.8 18.4 7.9 19.9 6.6 2.6 1.8
1997 3.8 7.0 31.9 18.0 8.0 20.4 6.4 2.6 1.9
1998 3.6 6.9 31.4 17.9 8.3 21.1 6.5 2.4 1.9
1999 4.0 6.4 31.8 18.5 6.4 21.3 7.2 2.4 2.0
2000 3.9 6.3 30.5 17.9 8.8 21.3 6.9 2.3 2.0
2001 4.1 6.5 30.2 17.6 8.7 21.3 7.3 2.4 1.9
2002 4.0 6.8 29.6 17.7 8.1 21.9 7.5 2.4 2.0
2003 4.1 6.2 30.0 17.2 8.7 21.8 7.6 2.5 1.9
2004 4.4 6.2 30.8 16.7 8.8 21.1 7.7 2.4 2.0
2005 4.3 6.4 30.4 16.8 8.9 21.2 7.5 2.4 2.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Houshold Economic Statistics Division.
Figure 10.1
Figure 10.3
Reducing Poverty
The investment in human capital by women employees has earned
them deserved returns and improved their economic position. Table
10.8 reports the median family income by family types from 1950 to
2005 according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household
Economic Statistics Division. The numbers are reported in current dol-
lars. Without adjusting for inflation, we can calculate the annual
growth rate for each family type during this 55-year period. On aver-
age, the annual growth rate is 5.28% for all families. The married-
couple families with the wife in paid labor force enjoys the highest an-
nual growth rate at 5.57%, followed by the single-female families with
an annual growth rate of 4.94%. The married-couple families with only
Engineering
Executives, and related Health
All administrators, Professional technologists technologist Science Other
occupations and managers specialty and technicians and technician technician occupation
Engineering
Executives, and related
administrators, Professional technologists Health technologist Science Other
and managers specialty and technician and technician technicians occupation
Table 10.8
Median family income by family type, all races 1950–2005 (current
dollars)
more than 70% of women with children under 18 years of age were in
the labor force in 2005. Mothers with children ages 6 to 17 years were
more likely to participate in the labor force than mothers with pre-
school children (age 6 or under). In 1975, 55% of mothers with children
ages 6 to 17 years were in the labor force, and this number rose to
76.5% in 2005. During the same period, mothers of preschool children
who were in the labor force rose from 39% to 62.8% (Child Health
USA, 2006).
Furthermore, Hong and White-Means (1993) reported that mater-
nal employment is a significant factor affecting children’s physical
health. Similar results were reported by Heyman (2001). A 2003 study
by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that almost 60%
of women with children received their insurance through either their
or their spouses’ employers. Of these women, approximately half
received coverage through their own employers, and half received
coverage as dependents. In 2005, job-based insurance was the major
form of health insurance for women ages 18 to 64, accounting for
approximately 34%.
Heck and Parker (2002) examined the impact of family structure on
the characteristics of health insurance coverage for children in the
United States. They reported that, in two-parent families, 9% of chil-
dren with both working parents are uninsured, while 15.1% of children
do not have insurance coverage when the father is the only one work-
ing in the family. A report by the Institute for Women’s Policy
Research (Lee, 2004) indicated that mothers are more likely to stay on
their job longer if the job provides child care or health insurance.
Figure 10.4
document the income gender gap in the United States and around the
world, and we will discuss the importance of gender equality.
Figure 10.4 shows the changes in the income/gender wage ratio for
full-time employees from 1960 to 2005. The gender/wage ratio is calcu-
lated based on median earnings of full-time, year-round employees
15 years of age and older. Obviously, we have made substantial
improvement in reducing the income gender gap over this period.
However, the situation is less impressive if we consider the annual
income by education levels. In Tables 10.9A and 10.9B we report the
median annual income of men and women by the amount of education
they attained from 1991 to 2005. In 10.9A, the numbers are in thou-
sands of dollars, while in 10.9B, the numbers are percentage of wom-
en’s median income to men’s median income. On average, we observe
reducing gaps between women’s median income and men’s median
income in all levels of education. The income gap between men and
women who have professional degrees has reduced most during this
period. In 1991, women with professional degrees earned less than 61%
compared with men in the same professions. The situation has been
improved and by the end of 2005 they earned more than 80% of the
men’s income in the same category. However, the numbers are less
comforting for other education levels. For example, the income gaps
between men and women are widened during this period for those
who have master’s degrees and associate’s degrees. For all other levels
of education, the reductions in income gaps are almost stalled. The sit-
uation is even more pronounced when we look at the women’s income
globally. The fact-sheet reported by the United Nation’s web site stated
that ‘‘women earn on average slightly more than 50 percent of what
Elementary/secondary College
High school
9th to 12th graduate Some
Sex and Less than Grade (no (includes college, no Associate Bachelor Master Professional Doctorate
year 9th grade diploma) equivalency) degree degree degree degree degree degree
Men
166
1991 16,880 20,994 26,218 31,034 32,221 39,894 47,002 70,284 54,626
1992 16,853 21,057 26,699 31,341 32,340 40,344 47,227 73,602 56,346
1993 16,380 21,402 26,820 31,278 32,616 41,416 49,826 77,185 61,347
1994 17,151 21,748 27,237 31,344 35,121 42,049 51,354 72,090 60,270
1995 17,492 21,887 28,542 32,363 33,468 42,602 51,814 75,283 61,700
1996 17,246 22,206 30,090 33,293 36,072 43,780 56,076 78,144 66,159
1997 18,551 24,241 30,655 35,087 36,677 46,255 57,553 78,290 70,706
1998 18,553 23,438 30,868 35,949 38,483 49,982 60,168 90,653 69,188
1999 19,532 23,946 32,028 37,166 40,422 50,994 61,816 76,722 76,722
2000 20,250 24,646 32,432 38,175 40,983 5,280 65,280 93,276 75,366
2001 21,139 25,857 33,037 40,159 41,658 53,108 66,934 100,000 81,077
2002 20,919 25,903 33,206 40,851 42,856 56,077 67,281 100,000 83,305
2003 21,217 26,468 35,412 41,348 42,871 56,502 70,640 100,000 87,131
2004 21,646 26,280 35,726 41,906 44,395 57,199 71,434 100,000 82,397
2005 22,330 27,189 36,302 42,418 47,180 60,020 75,025 100,000 85,864
continued
© 2010 ABC-Clio. All Rights Reserved.
Table 10.9A Continued
Elementary/secondary College
High school
9th to 12th graduate Some
Sex and Less than Grade (no (includes college, no Associate Bachelor Master Professional Doctorate
year 9th grade diploma) equivalency) degree degree degree degree degree degree
Women
1991 11,637 13,538 18,042 21,328 23,862 27,654 32,122 42,604 40,172
1992 12,153 13,705 18,615 21,951 24,817 29,206 35,001 44,313 43,778
1993 11,876 14,700 19,168 21,997 25,067 30,344 36,924 48,406 46,420
1994 12,029 14,474 19,529 22,171 25,214 30,740 37,546 48,284 46,479
1995 12,776 15,103 19,649 22,512 26,281 30,798 38,593 48,111 41,920
167
1996 13,572 16,132 20,501 23,832 26,773 31,910 40,415 56,431 51,989
1997 13,447 15,907 21,291 25,035 27,206 33,432 41,856 54,528 50,758
1998 14,132 15,847 21,963 26,024 28,377 35,408 46052 55,460 52,167
1999 14,420 16,328 21,956 26,419 30,108 56,685 45,360 56,685 56,322
2000 15,622 17,186 23,571 27,304 30,701 38,456 46,987 60,481 57,351
2001 16,170 17,937 24,217 28,839 31,194 39,818 48,276 60,093 60,425
2002 16,510 19,307 25,182 29,400 31,625 40,853 48,890 57,018 65,715
2003 16,907 18,938 26,074 30,142 32,253 41,327 50,163 66,491 67,214
2004 17,015 19,167 26,045 30,822 33,489 41,703 51,319 75,100 68,387
2005 16,142 20,125 26,289 31,399 33,939 42,172 51,412 80,458 66,852
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Houshold Economic Statistics Division.
Elementary/secondary College
High school Some
9th to 12th graduate college,
Less than Grade (no (includes no Associate Bachelor Master Professional Doctorate
Year 9th grade diploma) equivalency) degree degree degree degree degree degree
1991 68.9 64.5 68.8 68.7 74.1 69.3 70.5 60.6 73.5
1992 72.1 65.1 69.7 70.0 76.7 72.4 74.1 60.2 77.7
1993 72.5 68.7 71.5 70.3 76.9 73.3 74.1 62.7 75.7
1994 70.1 66.6 71.7 70.7 71.8 73.1 73.1 67.0 77.1
1995 73.0 69.0 68.8 69.6 78.5 72.3 74.5 63.9 67.9
1996 78.7 72.6 68.1 71.6 74.2 72.9 72.1 72.2 78.6
1997 72.5 65.6 69.5 71.4 74.2 72.3 72.7 69.6 71.8
1998 76.2 67.6 71.2 72.4 73.7 70.8 69.8 61.2 75.4
1999 73.8 68.2 68.6 71.1 74.5 71.2 73.4 59.0 73.4
2000 77.1 69.7 72.7 71.5 74.9 73.2 72.0 64.8 76.1
2001 76.5 69.4 73.3 71.8 74.9 75.0 72.1 60.1 74.5
2002 78.9 74.5 75.8 72.0 73.8 72.9 72.7 57.0 78.9
2003 79.7 71.6 73.6 72.9 75.2 73.1 71.0 66.5 77.1
2004 78.6 72.9 72.9 73.6 75.4 72.9 71.8 75.1 83.0
2005 72.3 74.0 72.4 74.0 71.9 70.3 68.5 80.5 77.9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Houshold Economic Statistics Division.
men earn’’ worldwide. Also, the majority of the 1.5 billion people liv-
ing on $1 a day or less are women. Hence, we certainly have a long
way to go in reducing the gender gaps in terms of income.
There are other factors restricting women’s economic opportunities.
Women assume major responsibility in taking care of their families.
Caregiving demands their time and increases their workload, and thus
reduces their availability to participate in the workforce (Paludi et al.,
2007). To encourage more participation of women in the labor force,
affordable child care has to be made available, and favorable tax rates
and policies have to be put in place. If incomes are high and some
household care can be purchased at a reasonable price (maybe with
subsidies), more women will likely join the labor force.
Women are less likely to return to work full-time after they give
birth (Barrow, 1999; Paul, 2006). In the United Sates, women are offered
a 12-week maternity leave without any pay. This policy obviously con-
tributes to the gender gap in income that we observed above. Women
are forced to choose between having children and continuity of their
career. The fact that 49% of high-achieving women in the United States
are childless compared to 19% of their male colleagues suggests that
lack of provisions for child rearing hinders women’s career achieve-
ment and restricts their economic opportunities (Hewlett, 2002).
It is important for policy makers to see that there is a clear correla-
tion between gender equality (measured by economic participation,
education, health, and political empowerment) and GDP per head.
Also, inequality between the sexes harms long-term growth. As a re-
minder for the policy makers, The Economist stated ‘‘men run the
world’s economics; but it may be up to the women to rescue them’’ (p.
88). To achieve and maintain economic growth, it is critical to continu-
ously fight to minimize the income gender gap.
CONCLUSION
As we demonstrated, women’s participation in the workforce is not
only instrumental to GDP growth and long-term economic success, it
also has profound secondary social benefits. It helps to reduce poverty,
increases the investment in human capital, and improves children’s
welfare. We also show that homecare responsibility and the existence
of the income gender gap have been detrimental to women’s active
involvement in the market. The failure of the United States in remov-
ing obstacles to employment for women is noted. The United States is
among the handful of countries that do not guarantee payment to
mothers during their maternity leaves. The female economic activity
rate, which is defined as the percentage of the economically active pop-
ulation (both employed and unemployed) out of the total population
for those aged 15 and older was 58.8% for the United States in 2000,
NOTES
1. The author does not mention ages for the labor participation rates. For a
comparison we report the employment and labor participation rate for the age
group 15–64 years across the world in Tables 10.2 and 10.3.
2. In the United States, the labor participation rate was 59% for women and
75% for men aged 16 and older in 1995.
3. Those who work less than 35 hours per week (U.S. Department of Labor
and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
REFERENCES
Barrow, L. (1999). An analysis of women’s return-to-work decisions following
first birth. Economic Inquiry, 37, 432–451.
Braunstein, E. (2003). Shifting women’s work from the home to market: Assess-
ing policies for economic growth in Taiwan, University of Massachusetts,
Political Economy Research Institute. http://www.peri.umass.edu/filead
min/pdf/research_brief/RB2003-2.pdf.
The Brookings Institute (2003). Welfare reform & beyond #28, The Brookings
Institute Policy Brief, September. http://www3.brookings.edu/es/wrb/
publications/pb/pb28.pdf.
Catalyst. (2007). Catalyst.org/pressroom/press_bottom_line_2shtml.
Child Health USA (2006). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau.
The Economist (2006, April 15). A guide to womenomics. http://www.ecomomist.
com, 73–74.
The Economist (2007, April 21). Womenomics revisited. http://www.economist.
com, 88.
Heck, K., & Parker, J. (2002). Family structure, socioeconomic status, and access
to health care for children. Health Services Research, 37, 171–184.
The Henry Kaiser Family Foundation (2003, April). Women’s issue brief, an
update on women’s health policy, women, work, and family health: A bal-
ancing act. http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/loader.cfm?url¼/common
spot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID¼14293.
Hewlett, S. A. (2002). Executive women and the myth of having it all. Harvard
Business Review, 80, 66–73.
Heyman, J. (Ed.). (2000). The widening gap: Why American working families are in
jeopardy and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.
Hong, G., & White-Means, S. I. (1993). Do working mothers have healthy chil-
dren? Abstract, Handbook of the Sociology of gender. As appears on
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8j0387821r2t121.
Lee, S. (2004). Women’s work supports, job retention, and job mobility: Child
care and employer-provided health insurance help women stay on jobs.
Institute for Women’s Policy Research, November. http://www.iwpr.org/
pdf/C359.pdf.
McMunn, A., Bartley, M., Hardy, R., & Kuh, D. (2006). Life course social roles
and women’s health in mid-life: Causation or selection. Journal of Epidemi-
ology and Community Health, 60, 484–489.
Naylor, M. (2006). There’s no workforce like home. Business Week. http://www.
businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060502_763202.htm.
Paludi, M., & Neidermeyer, P. (Eds.). (2007). Work, life and family imbalance:
How to level the playing field. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Paludi, M., Vaccariello, R., Graham, T., Smith, M., Allen-Dicker, K., Kasprzak, &
White, C. (2007). Work/life integration: Impact on women’s careers, employ-
ment, and family. In M. A. Paludi & P. E. Neidermeyer (Eds.), Work, life and
family imbalance: How to level the playing field. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Paul, G. (2006). The impact of children on women’s paid work. Fiscal Studies,
27, 473–512.
Walby, S., & Olsen, W. (2002, November). Report to Women and Equality Unit,
Department of Trade and Industry, UK.
Health and well-being: biological con- Labor force participation rate, 150–54;
sequences of stress, 60–63; job con- countries around the world, 151t;
trol effects, 63–67; managerial employment rate by sex, around
women, 71–73; occupation-specific, the world, 152t; part-time and full-
73–75; recommendations for time employee rate, 153t
enhancement, 75–76; religion/faith Language, use for exclusion of
effects, 124; sexual harassment women, 8
effects, 89–107; stress effects on risk Leadership: college heads in the U.K.,
of CAD, 67–71; women’s participa- 41–42; male and female stereotypes,
tion in the workforce, 160 4–5; patriarchy and, 9; self-esteem
High-achieving women: diverse eth- relations, 25–26; senior management
nic backgrounds, 41; notable Lat- and board levels, U.K., 42; work-
inas, 43; self-esteem and, 25–53; place stress effects, 71–75
self-esteem concerns, 38–40 The Lecherous Professor (Dzeich and
Horizontal hostility (violence), 10–11; Weiner), 92
courts addressing of, 15–16; wom- Lessons from my father, in my own
en’s hostility to women, 11–16 voice, 21–24
Hostile Hallways (AAUW), 97 Life satisfaction, 31
Hostile work environment: category Locus of control, self-esteem and
of sexual harassment, 89; gender performance, 33
harassment, 14; sexism, 5
Human Resources, in my own voice, Male domination, as sexual harass-
55–57 ment, 94–95
Hypertension, job stress effects, 68–69 Male stereotype, 2–5
Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical Managerial women, workplace stress
system (HPA), consequences of effects, 71–75
stress, 60–63 Marriage and motherhood, effects on
vocational behavior, 28
Immune function, job stress and, 63 Masculine women, 1–20
Impostor phenomenon, 28–29 The Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior
Income gender gap, 164–69, 165f, Survey, on sexual harassment, 100
166–68t Median family income, 160, 163t
Internal barriers, women’s occupa- Mental health: impact of sexual har-
tional achievement, 29 assment, 89–107; outcomes after
Iso-strain model, 64 sexual harassment, 98–99; sexual
Ivory Power: The Sexual Harassment of minority students, 99–100
Women on Campus (Paludi), 92–93 Mentoring, 145
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 14–15
Jealousy, horizontal hostility and, 11 Merit Systems Protection Board, U.S.
Job characteristics model (JCM), 65 federal government (USMSPB),
Job control (autonomy): jobs and 90–91; categories, 93–94
stress, 59; physical health, and psy-
chological well-being, 63–67; satis- Nagging, verbal passive-aggressive
faction and, 67 communication, 6
Linda Dillon is currently the director of human resources for the New
York State Higher Education Services Corporation. She has over 30 years
of service in the New York state government. Ms. Dillon earned a BS from
Russell Sage College and has completed several master’s level courses
from both Russell Sage College and Union College. Ms. Dillon resides
outside Albany, New York, with her husband William. Their son Christo-
pher is a recent graduate of Harvard Business School, and their daughter
Stephanie is a recent graduate of the Roger Williams University School of
Architecture.
Donna Lee Faulkner is currently completing the requirements for the Mas-
ter of Science degree in clinical psychology at the University of Texas at
Tyler, and she plans to become a licensed professional counselor in the state
of Texas. Shelly L. Marmion, PhD, and Ms. Faulkner co-authored the chapter
entitled ‘‘Effects of Class and Culture on Intimate Partner Violence,’’ which
was included in Intimate Violence Against Women: When Spouses, Partners and
Lovers Attack. In addition, Ms. Faulkner has assisted Dr. Marmion in experi-
mental research at the University of Texas at Tyler and has collaborated with
Dr. Paula Lundberg-Love on several research projects.
Zhilan Feng received her master’s and doctoral degrees from the Univer-
sity of Connecticut. She has been an assistant professor for Union Gradu-
ate College since September 2003, and has published papers in several
real estate and finance journals. Her current research topics are corporate
governance, asset pricing in capital markets, capital structure policy, and
real estate investment and securitization.
Susan Lehrman has been president and dean of the faculty of Union
Graduate College since it was spun off from Union College in 2003. Prior
to that time she served as dean of Union College’s graduate programs
and as a faculty member in its MBA program. Dr. Lehrman is a nationally
known health services researcher focusing on the evaluation of services
for the HIV infected and affected population, providing research and
evaluation services at the national, regional, and local levels. Prior to her
academic career, she had a successful 15-year career in health care man-
agement. Dr. Lehrman holds a BS in education from Oregon State Univer-
sity and MPH and PhD degrees from the University of California at
Berkeley. She currently is the dean of the business school at Providence
College.
Tina Stern grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, and has lived in Atlanta, Georgia,
since 1987. She earned her undergraduate degree from Boston University,
her master’s degree from Cleveland State University, and her PhD from
the University of Georgia. She is a professor of psychology at Georgia Pe-
rimeter College, where for many years she has taught courses on the psy-
chology of women. In addition, as a licensed psychologist, Tina maintains
a clinical practice specializing in women’s issues. Since her days at Boston
University, Tina has been interested in and has written about issues
related to women and, in particular, the psychology of women.