With the increasing presence of women in the workforce and growing awareness of the gender inequality, many organisations have began to tackle the discrimination that women face in the workplace. Active efforts to de-bias hiring processes, decrease gender pay-gap and improve parental leave policies, however, fail to address the full extent of the challenges that female employees and leaders continue to face. Recent review of the ways in which gender stereotypes contribute to discrimination in the workplace, conducted by Heilman, Caleo and Manzi (2024), sheds light on how despite significant advances, women continue to face gender-based discrimination that hinders their career progression.
Heilman et al. (2024) focus their review on the most commonly held gender stereotypes, which tend to view women as communal and men as agentic. The stereotypical view that women are kind, warm and caring (i.e. communal) while men are more assertive, independent and competitive (i.e. agentic), is believed to stem from the social roles that have been traditionally assigned to men and women. These stereotypes can be both descriptive, in that they use different terms to describe how men and women are, but they can also include prescriptions that dictate how men and women should be. The problematic nature of these stereotypes becomes apparent when we imagine a scenario where both Jane and John are staying longer at work to help their colleague finish a project, but this prosocial organisational behaviour is only really perceived for John who is seen as getting out of his way to help a colleague, while for Jane it is seen as given due to her “caring nature”. While it might make Jane more likable, it won’t likely count towards her promotion, while John’s act of kindness can even be further attributed to agentic traits such as ambition and capability, landing John a nice salary increase and a new title. The damaging impact of these stereotypes is especially likely, however, to be experienced by women applying for roles or working within male-dominated environments, as well as female leaders, who often face what INSEAD Professors Herminia Ibarra and Jennifer Petriglieri refer to as “impossible selves”. These prescriptions that are often impossible for women to attain since they pose conflicting requirements, where women should be competent but not bold, not acting like men but also not overly feminine etc.
Research shows that women who violate the ”ought tos” and “should nots” that come with the descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes that Heilman et al. (2024) discuss in their review, are faced with backlash and are penalised for not adhering to the stereotypes. For example, women have been shown to be disliked, have lower chances of being hired, experience diminished influence and worse salary outcomes simply because they failed to fit in with someone’s stereotypical views on gender. Due to still persistent views of leadership that fit in more closely with stereotypically masculine traits, such as competence, assertiveness, dominance and confidence, women are especially likely to experience the stereotype backlash when seeking promotions or when applying for or occupying managerial and leadership positions, since prototypical leader continues to be viewed as male and thus women are seen as ill-fitting to high power roles, despite research clearly indicating that women perform just as well or even exceed men in leadership roles. The penalties women face are the strongest for those who succeed in high status and high power roles (Heilman et al., 2024). For example, studies found high-achieving women in traditionally male environments, such as STEM or academia to be less likely to be offered a job and to be evaluated poorly. Unfortunately, even when they manage to successfully make it into the top and have built a career that unequivocally establishes their competence, women continue to face the impact of gender stereotypes. For example, Heilman et al. (1995) found female but not male leaders to be described as bitter, quarrelsome and selfish. Furthermore, women’s power is more volatile than men’s, their decisions and behaviours are under constant scrutiny and any slip-up is immediately attributed to the woman’s ill-fitting to the leadership position, while her male-counterpart’s behaviour continues to be dismissed as more situational.
Given these differences in men’s and women’s experience in the workplace, it is important that we ask what can be done to improve gender equality. In their review, Heilman et al. (2024) discuss that research on prescriptive stereotypes suggests two ways in which their negative impact on women’s career prospects can be decreased. Firstly, studies show that providing information about woman’s communality can dampen the hostile impressions that women who violate gender norms tend to face. Rather than trying to emulate their male counterparts, female leaders have been found most successful when they signal their communality through democratic leadership style and by demonstrating being caring and sensitive to the needs of others. Another way in which women have successfully managed to decrease the penalties for their success within masculine domains, was through attributing their counter-stereotypical behaviour to circumstances. For example, studies found that women who stressed that they arrived at their position unintentionally rather than as a person were viewed more favourably, while those who negotiated salary increase by stating it was suggested by someone else rather than their own idea, were more likely to receive it. While they can offer some interim solutions that can be applied by women wishing to get ahead, these research findings do not provide tangible solution to the problem posted by the gender stereotypes in the workplace and not only continue to place the burden on women, but in some ways force them to “play by the rules” that reinforce the present status-quo.
Although Heilman et al. (2024) firmly state that the best course of action would of course be to challenge the gender stereotypes at the societal level, the authors also recognise that decades of research indicate that changing stereotypes is a very slow and complex process. In fact, a growing body of research has been demonstrating that many initiatives designed to increase gender equality in the workplace are ineffective and fail to acknowledge that not only do they place the burden of change on women and disregard the consequences women often face when engaging in the behaviours that these workshops or leadership courses encourage.
Instead, the authors propose that organisations should take wide-ranging action to alleviate the gender bias in the workplace by:
With the increasing presence of women in leadership and decision-making positions, and with the growing awareness of both direct and indirect biases that women continue to face in the workplace, we are beginning to see some positive changes across the organisations. Let us hope this trend continues and that organisations seek to demonstrate their commitment to increasing gender equality by implementing evidence-based solutions and by creating workplaces that are inclusive to all the employees.
For anyone interested in supporting greater gender equality in their organisation – InPsy Consulting is here to help. Please do not hesitate to reach out to discuss ways in which you and your organisation can make a difference.
References:
Heilman, M. E., Caleo, S., & Manzi, F. (2024). Women at work: pathways from gender stereotypes to gender bias and discrimination. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11, 165-192.
