Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Combating Gender Bias in Modern Workplaces

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of the Sociology of Gender

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

Abstract

Widely shared cultural beliefs about gender, as contained in stereotypes, continue to disadvantage women in workplace settings. Stereotypes include beliefs that women are less competent than men in many domains, which lead women to be held to higher performance standards, to face increased scrutiny and shifting criteria when being evaluated, to encounter likeability and motherhood penalties, and to lack access to powerful networks. As a result, women experience disadvantages at work, including biases in hiring, evaluation, and promotion decisions. Such biases often operate outside conscious awareness, in what some scholars term “implicit bias,” “unconscious bias,” or “second-generation bias” (Ibarra et al. in Harvard Bus Rev, 91:60–66, 2013). Organizations have engaged in bias-mitigation efforts, such as employee resource groups, unconscious bias training, and broad-scale diversity initiatives. However, such approaches to diversity can either fail or even backfire, exacerbating inequality. While some emerging research offers solutions for positive change, more research is needed to understand how organizations can decrease the effects of gender bias and achieve lasting equality in workplaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs and bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benard, S., & Correll, S. J. (2010). Normative discrimination and the motherhood penalty. Gender & Society, 24(5), 616–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Hamit Fisek, M., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation-states approach. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielby, W. T. (2000). Minimizing workplace gender and racial bias. Contemporary Sociology, 29(1), 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 707–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castilla, E. J. (2015). Accounting for the gap: A firm study manipulating organizational accountability and transparency in pay decisions. Organization Science, 26, 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catalyst. (2012). Catalyst census: Fortune 500 women executive officers and top earners. (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2012-catalyst-census-fortune-500-women-executive-officers-and-top-earners).

  • Chen, A. S. (1999). Lives at the center of the periphery, lives at the periphery of the center: Chinese American Masculinities and bargaining with hegemony. Gender & Society, 13(5), 584–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayman Institute for Gender Research. (2015). Assessing performance and potential. See Bias Block Bias Toolkits. (https://womensleadership.stanford.edu/tools).

  • Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, M., & Mount, L. (1996). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J. (2017). SWS 2016 Feminist Lecture: Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces: A small wins approach to organizational change. Gender & Society, 31(6), 725–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S., & Simard, C. (2016). Research: Vague feedback is holding women back. Harvard Business Review. (https://hbr.org/2016/04/research-vague-feedback-is-holding-women-back).

  • Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015). Rage against the iron cage: The varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 1014–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 58–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2015). Condoning stereotypes? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 343–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassiotto, M., Hamel, E. O., Ku, M., Correll, S., Grewal, D., Lavori, P. … Valantine, H. (2016). Women in academic medicine: Measuring stereotype threat among junior faculty. Journal of Women’s Health, 25(3), 292–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(3), 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of ‘Blind’ auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90, 715–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(1), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H., Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010, September). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 80–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H., Ely, R. J. & Kolb, D. (2013, September). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review, 91, 60–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ito, T. A., & Urland, G. R. (2003). Race and gender on the brain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 616–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1975). Women and the structure of organizations: Explorations in theory and behavior. In R. M. Kanter & M. Millman (Eds.), Another Voice. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. L., Ammons, S. K., Chermack, K., & Moen, P. (2010). Gendered challenge, gendered response: Confronting the ideal worker norm in a White-Collar organization. Gender & Society, 24(3), 281–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. L., Moen, P., & Tranby, E. (2011). Changing workplaces to reduce work-family conflict: Schedule control in a White-Collar organization. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 265–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, R. W., Shelby, R. A., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23, 346–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. E., Phillips, K. W., & Sasaki, S. J. (2016). Reducing bias through blindness or awareness: Divergent effects of race and gender ideologies (Working Paper). Columbia: Columbia Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., Fan, W., Lee, S. R., Almeida, D., Kossek, E. E., et al. (2016). Does a flexibility/support organizational initiative improve high-tech employees’ well-being? evidence from the work, family, and health network. American Sociological Review, 81(1), 134–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedulla, D. S. (2014). The positive consequences of negative stereotypes: Race, sexual orientation, and the job application process. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(1), 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. L. (1996). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B. F. (2000). The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 29(2), 319–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B. F., & McBrier, D. B. (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations’ employment of male and female managers. American Sociological Review, 65(2), 210–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, E. V., Phillips, K. W., Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2011). Double jeopardy or greater latitude: Do black women escape backlash for dominance displays? (Working Paper). Evanston: Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1993). Gender, status and the social psychology of expectations. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender, feminism on theory. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Kricheli-Katz, T. (2013). Intersecting cultural beliefs in social relations: Gender, race, and class binds and freedoms. Gender & Society, 27(3), 294–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered effect of social class signals in an elite labor market. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1097–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellers, P. (2012). Fortune 500 women CEOs hits a milestone. Fortune. (http://fortune.com/2012/11/12/fortune-500-women-ceos-hit-a-milestone/).

  • Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Lovin, L., & McPherson, M. (1993). You are who you know: A network approach to gender. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender, feminism on theory (pp. 223–251). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7), 509–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thébaud, S., & Taylor, C. J. (2016). The ‘Women Always Fail’ thing: The specter of motherhood and its influence on the career aspirations of young scientists and engineers (Working Paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. A., & Creary, S. J. (2009). Meeting the diversity challenge at PepsiCo: The Steve Reinemund Era. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, C. L., Chan, J. F., & Kaiser, C. R. (2011). Racial stereotypes and interracial attraction: Phenotypic prototypicality and perceived attractiveness of Asians. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 427–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. L., Muller, C., & Kilanski, K. (2010). Gendered organizations in the new economy. Gender & Society, 26(4), 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynn, A. T., & Correll, S. J. (2018). Puncturing the pipeline: Do technology companies alienate women in recruiting sessions? Social Studies of Science, 48(1), 149–164. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306312718756766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshino, K., & Smith, C. (2013). Uncovering talent: A new model of inclusion. Deloitte University Leadership Center for Inclusion.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 120, Stanford, CA, 94305-2047, USA

    Alison T. Wynn & Shelley J. Correll

Authors
  1. Alison T. Wynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shelley J. Correll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison T. Wynn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Barbara J. Risman

  2. University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, USA

    Carissa M. Froyum

  3. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    William J. Scarborough

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wynn, A.T., Correll, S.J. (2018). Combating Gender Bias in Modern Workplaces. In: Risman, B., Froyum, C., Scarborough, W. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76333-0_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76333-0_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76332-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76333-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation