1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Psychology
  4. Volume 75, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 75, 2024

Why We Should Stop Trying to Fix Women: How Context Shapes and Constrains Women's Career Trajectories

Abstract

In this review we examine two classes of interventions designed to achieve workplace gender equality: () those designed to boost motivations and ambition, such as those that aim to attract more women into roles where they are underrepresented; and () those that try to provide women with needed abilities to achieve these positions. While such initiatives are generally well meaning, they tend to be based upon (and reinforce) stereotypes of what women lack. Such a deficit model leads to interventions that attempt to “fix” women rather than address the structural factors that are the root of gender inequalities. We provide a critical appraisal of the literature to establish an evidence base for why fixing women is unlikely to be successful. As an alternative, we focus on understanding how organizational context and culture maintain these inequalities by looking at how they shape and constrain () women's motivations and ambitions, and () the expression and interpretation of their skills and attributes. In doing so, we seek to shift the interventional focus from women themselves to the systems and structures in which they are embedded.

Keyword(s): diversity and inclusion, gender inequality, impostor syndrome, risk taking, work-life balance, workplace gender equality
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032620-030938
2024-01-18
2024-04-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/75/1/annurev-psych-032620-030938.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032620-030938&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acker J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gend. Soc. 4::139–58
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aday A, Schmader T. 2019. Seeking authenticity in diverse contexts: how identities and environments constrain “free” choice. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 13:e12450
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alam A. 2022. Psychological, sociocultural, and biological elucidations for gender gap in STEM education: a call for translation of research into evidence-based interventions. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainability and Equity (ICSE-2021)95–107. Dordrecht, Neth.: Atlantis Press
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Amoruso S. 2015. #GIRLBOSS New York: Portfolio
  5. Antecol H. 2011. The opt-out revolution: recent trends in female labor supply. Res. Labor Econ. 33:45–83
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Arch EC. 1993. Risk-taking: a motivational basis for sex differences. Psychol. Rep. 73:3–11
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Badura KL, Grijalva E, Newman DA, Yan TT, Jeon G. 2018. Gender and leadership emergence: a meta-analysis and explanatory model. Pers. Psychol. 71:335–67
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bari D, Robert P. 2016. Who benefits more from a balanced life? Gender differences in work-life balance and satisfaction with life in eight post-communist countries. Intersections East Eur. . J. Soc. Politics 2:21–41
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Begeny CT, Huo YJ, Smith HJ, Ryan MK. 2021. Being treated fairly in groups is important, but not sufficient: the role of distinctive treatment in groups, and its implications for mental health. PLOS ONE 16:5e0251871
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Begeny CT, Ryan MK, Bongiorno R. 2018. Motivation, Satisfaction, and Retention: Understanding the Importance of Vets’ Day-to-Day Work Experience London: Br. Vet. Assoc.
  11. Belkin L. 2003. The opt-out revolution. New York Times Oct. 26
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bem SL. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42:155–62
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Berdahl JL, Cooper M, Glick P, Livingston RW, Williams JC. 2018. Work as a masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74:422–48
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Beyer S. 1998. Gender differences in causal attributions by college students of performance on course examinations. Curr. Psychol. 17:346–58
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Blau FD, Kahn LM. 2017. The gender wage gap: extent, trends, and explanations. J. Econ. Lit. 55:789–865
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Boushey H. 2005. Are women opting out? Debunking the myth Brief. Pap., Cent. Econ. Policy Res. Washington, DC:
  17. Bowles HR, Babcock L, Lei L. 2007. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 103:84–103
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bravata DM, Watts SA, Keefer AL, Madhusudhan DK, Taylor KT et al. 2020. Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: a systematic review. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 35:1252–75
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Brescoll VL, Dawson E, Uhlmann EL. 2010. Hard won and easily lost: the fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychol. Sci. 21:111640–42
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Brown B. 2010. The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are New York: Simon & Schuster
  21. Brown B. 2018. Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts New York: Random House
  22. Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. 1999. Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 125:367–83
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Carlin BA, Gelb BD, Belinne JK, Ramchand L. 2018. Bridging the gender gap in confidence. Bus. Horiz. 61:765–74
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Carter ME, Franco F, Gine M. 2017. Executive gender pay gaps: the roles of female risk aversion and board representation. Contemp. Account. Res. 34:1232–64
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Casad BJ, Oyler DL, Sullivan ET, McClellan EM, Tierney DN et al. 2018. Wise psychological interventions to improve gender and racial equality in STEM. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21:767–87
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Catalyst 2022. Women in management(quick take). Catalyst March 1. https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-management
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chandra S, Huebert CA, Crowley E, Das AM. 2019. Impostor syndrome: Could it be holding you or your mentees back?. CHEST 156:126–32
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cheryan S, Markus HR. 2020. Masculine defaults: identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychol. Rev. 127:1022–52
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Clance PR, Imes SA. 1978. The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychother. Theory Res. Practice 15:241–47
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cokley K, Awad G, Smith L, Jackson S, Awosogba O et al. 2015. The roles of gender stigma consciousness, impostor phenomenon and academic self-concept in the academic outcomes of women and men. Sex Roles 73:414–26
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Craig L, Mullan K. 2010. Parenthood, gender and work-family time in the United States, Australia, Italy, France, and Denmark. J. Marriage Fam. 72:1344–61
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Crenshaw KW. 2017. On Intersectionality: Essential Writings New York: The New Press
  33. Croft A, Atkinson C, Sandstrom G, Orbell S, Aknin L. 2021. Loosening the GRIP (gender roles inhibiting prosociality) to promote gender equality. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 25:166–92
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Crompton R, Lyonette C. 2006. Work-life “balance” in Europe. Acta Sociol. 49:379–93
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Croson R, Gneezy U. 2009. Gender differences in preferences. J. Econ. Lit. 47:448–74
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Dahm PC, Kim Y, Glomb TM. 2019. Leaning in and out: work-life tradeoffs, self-conscious emotions, and life role satisfaction. J. Psychol. 153:478–506
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Damore J. 2017. Google's ideological echo chamber Intern. Memo., Google Mountain View, CA: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber
  38. Deloitte 2021. Advancing more women leaders in financial services: a global report. Deloitte Insights June 16. https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/industry/financial-services/gender-diversity-in-global-financial-services.html
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Dormanen R, Sanders CS, Maffly-Kipp J, Smith JL, Vess M. 2020. Assimilation undercuts authenticity: a consequence of women's masculine self-presentation in masculine contexts. Psychol. Women Q. 44:488–502
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Eagly AH, Carli LL. 2003. The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence. Leadersh. Q. 14:807–34
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Eagly AH, Karau SJ. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109:573–98
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Eagly AH, Makhijani MG, Klonsky BG. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 111:3–22
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Eagly AH, Steffen VJ. 1984. Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:735–54
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ellemers N. 2014. Women at work: how organizational features impact career development. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 1:46–54
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ellemers N. 2018. Gender stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69:275–98
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Eckel CC, Grossman PJ. 2008. Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 68:1–17
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Ertac S, Gurdal MY. 2012. Deciding to decide: gender, leadership and risk-taking in groups. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 83:24–30
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Faccio M, Marchica MT, Mura R. 2016. CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. J. Corp. Finance 39:193–209
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Faison Hewlin P 2020. How to be more authentic at work. Greater Good Magazine Aug. 3. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_be_more_authentic_at_work
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Feenstra S, Begeny CT, Ryan MK, Rink FA, Stoker JI, Jordan J. 2020. Contextualizing the impostor “syndrome. .” Front. Psychol. 11:575024
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Fels A. 2005. Necessary Dreams: Ambition in Women's Changing Lives New York: Anchor
  52. Fiske ST, Bersoff DN, Borgida E, Deaux K, Heilman ME. 1991. Social science research on trial: use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Am. Psychol. 46:101049–60
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Fox C. 2017. Stop Fixing Women: Why Building Fairer Workplaces Is Everybody's Business Montgomery, AL: NewSouth
  54. Frankel LP. 2014. Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office: Unconscious Mistakes Women Make That Sabotage Their Careers New York: Balance
  55. Gartzia L, Morgenroth T, Ryan MK, Peters. K 2021. Testing the motivational effects of attainable role models: field and experimental evidence. J. Theor. Soc. Psychol. 5:591–602
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Gill R, Orgad S. 2017. Confidence culture and the remaking of feminism. New Form. 91:16–34
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Goff R, Jones G. 2005. Managing authenticity: the paradox of great leadership. Harvard Business Review Dec. https://hbr.org/2005/12/managing-authenticity-the-paradox-of-great-leadership
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Guthridge M, Kirkman M, Penovic T, Giummarra MJ. 2022. Promoting gender equality: a systematic review of interventions. Soc. Justice Res. 35:318–43
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hall L, Donaghue N. 2013.. “ Nice girls don't carry knives”: constructions of ambition in media coverage of Australia's first female prime minister. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 52:631–47
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hanoch Y, Johnson JG, Wilke A. 2006. Domain specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment: an application to risk-taking behavior. Psychol. Sci. 17:4300–4
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Harris CR, Jenkins M. 2006. Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 1:148–63
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Heilman ME. 1983. Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Res. Organ. Behav. 5:269–98
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Heilman ME. 2001. Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57:657–74
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF. 1995. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 10:237–52
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM. 2004. Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:416–27
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Henley D. 2019. How to be your authentic self at work (and why it matters). Forbes Dec. 14
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Herbst TH. 2020. Gender differences in self-perception accuracy: the confidence gap and women leaders’ underrepresentation in academia. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 46: http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1704
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Herrmann SD, Adelman RM, Bodford JE, Graudejus O, Okun MA, Kwan VS. 2016. The effects of a female role model on academic performance and persistence of women in STEM courses. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38:258–68
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Hewlett SA. 2014. The authenticity trap for workers who are not straight, white men. Harvard Business Review July 17
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hewlett SA, Luce CB. 2005. Off-ramps and on-ramps: keeping talented women on the road to success. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83:43–54
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Holzmeister F, Stefan M. 2021. The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: across-methods (in) consistency?. Exp. Econ. 24:593–616
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Hyde JS, Fennema E, Ryan M, Frost LA, Hopp C. 1990. Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Women Q. 14:299–324
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Int. Labour Organ 2022. The gender pay gap. International Labour Organization Dec. 20. https://www.ilo.org/travail/areasofwork/wages-and-income/WCMS_867160/lang–en/index.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Janoff-Bulman R, Wade MB. 1996. The dilemma of self-advocacy for women: another case of blaming the victim?. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 15:445–46
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Kanter RM. 1975. Men and Women of the Corporation New York: Basic Books
  76. Kark R, Meister A, Peters K. 2022. Now you see me, now you don't: a conceptual model of the antecedents and consequences of leader impostorism. J. Manag. 48:1948–79
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Kay K, Shipman C. 2014. The Confidence Code New York: Harper Bus.
  78. Keene JR, Reynolds JR. 2005. The job costs of family demands: gender differences in negative family-to-work spillover. J. Family Issues 26:275–99
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Kelly EL, Ammons SK, Chermack K, Moen P. 2010. Gendered challenge, gendered response: confronting the ideal worker norm in a white-collar organization. Gend. Soc. 24:281–303
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Kim JY, Fitzsimons GM, Kay AC. 2018. Lean in messages increase attributions of women's responsibility for gender inequality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115:974–1001
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kossek EE, Buzzanell PM. 2018. Women's career equality and leadership in organizations: creating an evidence-based positive change. Hum. Resour. Manag. 57:813–22
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Kossek EE, Perrigino M, Rock AG. 2021. From ideal workers to ideal work for all: a 50-year review integrating careers and work-family research with a future research agenda. J. Vocat. Behav. 126:103504
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Kossek EE, Su R, Wu L. 2017.. “ Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating perspectives on women's career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. J. Manag. 43:228–54
     [Google Scholar]
  84. KPMG 2019. Risk, resilience, reward. Mastering the three “R's”: the key to women's success in the workplace Rep. KPMG New York: https://info.kpmg.us/content/dam/info/en/news-perspectives/pdf/2019/KPMG_Womens_Leadership_Study.pdf
  85. Lambert B, Caza BB, Trinh E, Ashford S. 2022. Individual-centered interventions: identifying what, how, and why interventions work in organizational contexts. Acad. Manag. Ann. 16:508–46
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Lau VW, Scott VL, Warren MA, Bligh MC. 2022. Moving from problems to solutions: a review of gender equality interventions at work using an ecological systems approach. J. Organ. Behav. 44:399–419
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Little TH, Dunn D, Deen RE. 2001. A view from the top: gender differences in legislative priorities among state legislative leaders. Women Politics 22:29–50
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Lyness KS, Thompson DE. 1997. Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:359–75
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Lyonette C. 2015. Part-time work, work-life balance and gender equality. J. Soc. Welf. Fam. Law 37:321–33
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Mazei J, Hüffmeier J, Freund PA, Stuhlmacher AF, Bilke L, Hertel G. 2015. A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychol. Bull. 141:85–104
     [Google Scholar]
  91. McCormick-Huhn K, Warner LR, Settles IH, Shields SA. 2019. What if psychology took intersectionality seriously? Changing how psychologists think about participants. Psychol. Women Q. 43:445–56
     [Google Scholar]
  92. McDowell J. 2006. Women-owned firms increase nearly 20 percent News Release, Off. Advocacy US Small Bus. Adm. Washington, DC: Aug. 17
  93. Meeussen L, Begeny CT, Peters K, Ryan MK. 2022. In traditionally male-dominated fields, women are less willing to make sacrifices for their career because discrimination and lower fit with people up the ladder make sacrifices less worthwhile. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 52:588–601
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Meyers-Levy J, Loken B. 2015. Revisiting gender differences: what we know and what lies ahead. J. Consum. Psychol. 25:129–49
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Mohr T. 2014. Playing Big: Find Your Voice, Your Vision and Make Things Happen New York: Random House
  96. Morgenroth T, Fine C, Ryan MK, Genat AE. 2018. Sex, drugs, and reckless driving: Are measures biased toward identifying risk-taking in men?. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 9:744–53
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Morgenroth T, Ryan MK. 2018. Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler's work inform experimental social psychologists’ conceptualization of gender?. Front. Psychol. 9:1320
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Morgenroth T, Ryan MK. 2021. The effects of gender trouble: an integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16:1113–42
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Morgenroth T, Ryan MK, Fine C. 2022. The gendered consequences of risk-taking at work: Are women averse to risk or to poor consequences?. Psychol. Women Q. 46:3257–77
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Morgenroth T, Ryan MK, Rink FA, Begeny CT. 2021. The (in)compatibility of identities: understanding gender differences in work-life conflict through the fit with leaders. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2:448–69
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Moss-Racusin CA, Pietri ES, Hennes EP, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL et al. 2018. Reducing STEM gender bias with VIDS (video interventions for diversity in STEM). J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 24:2236–60
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Mousa M, Boyle J, Skouteris H, Mullins AK, Currie G, Riach K, Teede HJ. 2021. Advancing women in healthcare leadership: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of multi-sector evidence on organisational interventions. EClinicalMedicine 39:101084
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Mullangi S, Jagsi R. 2019. Imposter syndrome: Treat the cause, not the symptom. JAMA 322:403–4
     [Google Scholar]
  104. NATO 2019. Summary of the National Reports of NATO Member and Partner Nations to the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives Brussels, Belg: NATO https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/9/pdf/NCGP_Full_Report_2019.pdf
  105. Nelson JA. 2014. The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: the case of economics, gender, and risk aversion. J. Econ. Methodol. 21:211–31
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Nyanga T, Chindanya A. 2021. From risk aversion to risk loving: strategies to increase participation of female entrepreneurs in Masvingo Urban, Zimbabwe. Ushus J. Bus. Manag. 20:1–14
     [Google Scholar]
  107. OECD (Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev.) 2020. What big data can tell us about women on boards Rep. OECD Paris: https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/what-big-data-can-tell-us-about-women-on-boards.htm
  108. OECD (Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev.) 2023. Share of employed in part-time employment, by sex and age group Data, OECD Paris: https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54746
  109. Okimoto TG, Brescoll VL. 2010. The price of power: power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36:923–36
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Opara V, Sealy R, Ryan MK. 2020. The workplace experiences of BAME professional women: understanding experiences at the intersection. Gend. Work Organ. 27:1192–213
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Park B, Smith JA, Correll J. 2008.. “ Having it all” or “doing it all”? Perceived trait attributes and behavioral obligations as a function of workload, parenthood, and gender. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38:1156–64
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Paton N. 2006. Women are less ambitious than men: and men are to blame. Management-Issues.com Nov. 23. http://www.management-issues.com/news/3790/women-are-less-ambitious—and-men-are-to-blame/
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Pedroni A, Frey R, Bruhin A, Dutilh G, Hertwig R, Rieskamp J. 2017. The risk elicitation puzzle. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:803–9
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Perez CC. 2019. Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men New York: Abrams
  115. Peters K, Ryan MK, Haslam SA, Fernandes H. 2012. To belong or not to belong: evidence that women's occupational disidentification is promoted by lack of fit with masculine occupational prototypes. J. Pers. Psychol. 3:148–58
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Reid E. 2015. Embracing, passing, revealing, and the ideal worker image: how people navigate expected and experienced professional identities. Organ. Sci. 26:997–1017
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Rezvani S. 2012. Pushback: How Smart Women Ask—and Stand Up—for What They Want New York: Wiley
  118. Rosh L, Offerman L. 2013. Be yourself, but carefully. Harvard Business Review Oct. https://hbr.org/2013/10/be-yourself-but-carefully
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Rudman LA. 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74:629–45
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Rudman LA, Glick P. 2001. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57:732–62
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Glick P, Phelan JE. 2012. Reactions to vanguards: advances in backlash theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:167–227
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Rudman LA, Phelan JE. 2008. Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 28:61–79
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Ryan MK. 2022. To advance equality for women, use the evidence. Nature 604:7906403
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Ryan MK. 2023. Addressing workplace gender inequality: using the evidence to avoid common pitfalls. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 62:1–11
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Ryan MK, Haslam SA. 2005. The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. Br. J. Manag. 16:81–90
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Ryan MK, Haslam SA. 2007. The glass cliff: exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32:549–72
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Ryan MK, Haslam SA, Hersby MD, Bongiorno R. 2011. Think crisis-think female: glass cliffs and contextual variation in the think manager-think male stereotype. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:470–84
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Sandberg S. 2013. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead New York: Alfred A. Knopf
  129. Savani K, Stephens NM, Markus HR. 2011. The unanticipated interpersonal and societal consequences of choice: victim blaming and reduced support for the public good. Psychol. Sci. 22:795–802
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Schein VE. 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 57:95–100
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Schieder J, Gould E. 2016.. “ Women's work” and the gender pay gap: how discrimination, societal norms, and other forces affect women's occupational choices—and their pay Rep. Econ. Policy Inst. Washington, DC:
  132. Schmader T. 2023. Gender inclusion and fit in STEM. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 74:219–43
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Schmader T, Dennehy TC, Baron AS. 2022. Why antibias interventions (need not) fail. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17:1381–403
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Schmader T, Sedikides C. 2018. State authenticity as fit to environment: the implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 22:228–59
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Shin JEL, Levy SR, London B. 2016. Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 46:410–27
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Smith CA. 2006. The gender shift in veterinary medicine: cause and effect. Vet. Clin. Small Anim. Pract. 36:329–39
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Sørensen SØ. 2017. The performativity of choice: postfeminist perspectives on work-life balance. Gend. Work Organ. 24:297–13
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Stephens NM, Levine CS. 2011. Opting out or denying discrimination? How the framework of free choice in American society influences perceptions of gender inequality. Psychol. Sci. 22:1231–36
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Stone P. 2007. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  140. Stone P, Lovejoy M. 2004. Fast-track women and the “choice” to stay home. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 596:62–83
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Stroh LK, Brett JM, Reilly AH. 1996. Family structure, glass ceiling, and traditional explanations for the differential rate of turnover of female and male managers. J. Vocat. Behav. 49:99–118
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Sund M. 2017. UEMS: Survey on Women In Surgery Europe (WISE) PowerPoint Present. Copenhagen, Den.: May 6. https://www.uems.eu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/48712/Sund,-M.-WISE-survey-1.pdf
  143. Thomson V. 2006. How much of the remaining gender pay gap is the result of discrimination, and how much is due to individual choices?. Int. J. Urban Labour Leis. 7:21–32
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Tulshyan R, Burey JA. 2021. Stop telling women they have imposter syndrome. Harvard Business Review Febr. 11. https://hbr.org/2021/02/stop-telling-women-they-have-imposter-syndrome
    [Google Scholar]
  145. UIS (UNESCO Inst. Stat.) 2019. Women in science Fact sheet 55 UNESCO Inst. Stat. Paris: https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs55-women-in-science-2019-en.pdf
  146. UN Women 2022. Facts and figures: women's leadership and political participation. UN Women https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures#_National_parliaments (updated March 7 )
     [Google Scholar]
  147. US House, Comm. Overs. Gov. Reform 2008. Causes and Effects of the Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off.
  148. Vajapey SP, Weber KL, Samora JB. 2020. Confidence gap between men and women in medicine: a systematic review. Curr. Orthop. Pract. 31:494–502
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Van Vianen AEM, Fischer AH. 2002. Illuminating the glass ceiling: the role of organizational culture preferences. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 75:315–37
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Warrell M. 2013. Sheryl Sandberg is right. Women must “lean in” to risk. Forbes March 3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/03/03/sheryl-sandberg-is-right-women-must-lean-into-risk/?sh=150a55093ff5
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE. 2002. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 15:263–90
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Williams JC. 2000. Unbending Gender Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  153. Williams MJ, Tiedens LZ. 2016. The subtle suspension of backlash: a meta-analysis of penalties for women's implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychol. Bull. 142:165
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Wong CYE, Kirby TA, Rink F, Ryan MK. 2022. Intersectional invisibility in women's diversity interventions. Front. Psychol. 13:791572
     [Google Scholar]
  155. World Econ. Forum. 2023. Global Gender Gap Report 2023 Rep. World Econ. Forum Geneva, Switz.: June 20. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2023/
  156. Zawadzki MJ, Shields SA, Danube CL, Swim JK. 2014. Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: the Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation (WAGES). Psychol. Women Q. 38:75–92
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Zimmerman LM, Clark MA. 2016. Opting-out and opting-in: a review and agenda for future research. Career Dev. Int. 21:603–33
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032620-030938
Loading
Why We Should Stop Trying to Fix Women: How Context Shapes and Constrains Women's Career Trajectories
Annual Review of Psychology 75, 555 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032620-030938
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032620-030938
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032620-030938
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error