Why We Should Stop Trying to Fix Women

In this review we examine two classes of interventions designed to achieve workplace gender equality: ( a ) those designed to boost motivations and am-bition, such as those that aim to attract more women into roles where they are underrepresented; and ( b ) 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 ( a ) women’s motivations and


INTRODUCTION
While there are many visible examples of individual women who have succeeded in the workplace-women at the helms of their own businesses, running corporations, even leading countries-there is no doubt that women as a group fare less well.The statistics demonstrate gender inequalities at all stages of career trajectories: For example, women are overrepresented in sectors and roles that are low in status and in value (UN Women 2022); they are paid consistently less than their male peers, even when enacting the same role (Int.Labour Organ.2022); and they are visibly underrepresented in positions of leadership and influence (World Econ. Forum 2023).These inequalities are only exacerbated for those who face intersectional disadvantages, such as those based on race and ethnicity, sexuality and gender identity, and disability (e.g., Crenshaw 2017, Opara et al. 2020, Wong et al. 2022).
To address the persistence of gender inequalities, many workplace gender equality interventions have been designed and implemented by governments, gender equality practitioners, professional bodies, and organizations.In this review article we focus on two classes of initiatives that make up the majority of interventions: (a) those designed to boost motivations and ambition, such as those that aim to attract more women into those professions (such as STEM and politics) and roles (such as leadership) in which they are underrepresented; and (b) those that try to provide women with needed abilities to achieve these positions, such as confidence, assertiveness, and risk-taking, negotiation, and leadership skills.
While these types of initiatives are generally well meaning, they are nonetheless problematic in at least three interrelated ways: First, many of these interventions do not have a clear evidence base (Guthridge et al. 2022, Kossek & Buzzanell 2018, Lau et al. 2022, Schmader et al. 2022) but rather are based upon (and reinforce) stereotypes of what women lack (Ellemers 2018).Second, such a deficit model leads to interventions that attempt to "fix" women, and in doing so put the onus for change (and the blame for inequality) on women themselves (Fox 2017, Kim et al. 2018).Third, such women-focused approaches fail to address the systemic and structural factors that are the root of gender inequalities (Ryan 2022(Ryan , 2023)).
In this review article we provide a critical appraisal of the literature to establish an evidence base for why fixing women is unlikely to be a successful approach to achieving gender equality in career trajectories.As an alternative, we focus on understanding the ways in which organizational context and culture maintain these inequalities (Ellemers 2014, Kossek et al. 2017) by looking at how they shape and constrain (a) women's motivations and ambitions, and (b) 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 (for examples of more structural approaches to gender equality initiatives, see Alam 2022, Casad et al. 2018, Cheryan & Markus 2020, Schmader 2023).

THE PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO FIX WOMEN
The stubborn persistence of women's underrepresentation in many industries is clear.For example, women make up less than 30% of workers in research and development (UIS 2019), only 7% of the armed forces (NATO 2019), less than 20% of surgeons (Sund 2017), and less than 20% of senior officers in the financial services sector (Deloitte 2021).They are also underrepresented in positions of power and influence, including in corporate boardrooms (OECD 2020), in senior leadership positions (Catalyst 2022), and in representative political roles (UN Women 2022).This continued underrepresentation is problematic for individual women's career trajectories and for the cause of gender equality as a whole, but it is also problematic for society more generally.An absence of women in such roles has demonstrable implications for what is seen and prioritized and for how problems are addressed and solved (e.g., Little et al. 2001, Perez 2019) The persistence of women's underrepresentation has led to many interventions, many of them aimed at women themselves (Lambert et al. 2022).Within these interventions, prescriptive advice abounds: Women are told to "lean in" (Sandberg 2013), "push back" (Rezvani 2012), "play big" (Mohr 2014), "dare to lead" (Brown 2018) and be a "GirlBoss" (Amoruso 2015).One feels exhausted just listening to all these directives.While this advice is designed to empower women's choices and raise their confidence and ambitions, this constant telling them what to do runs the risk of sending the message that women themselves are to be blamed for the inequalities they face (Kim et al. 2018), that there is something broken in them that must be fixed.Sometimes this blame is implicit, other times it is more explicit-such as in the subtitle of Frankel's (2014) book, Unconscious Mistakes Women Make That Sabotage Their Careers.

What Is It That Is Wrong with Women?
If women are considered broken, then we need to ask ourselves: broken relative to what?Women's deficits are seen in relation to societal and organizational ideals-ideal workers, ideal team members, and ideal leaders (and even ideal humans; Perez 2019).Classic work on gendered organizations (e.g., Acker 1990, Kanter 1975) demonstrates that these ideals are very much in line with masculine (white, able-bodied, straight) stereotypes, and these ideals persist today (e.g., Cheryan & Markus 2020, Ellemers 2018, Kossek et al. 2021).The ideal worker continues to be defined in terms of masculine traits and abilities (Acker 1990, Reid 2015, Williams 2000), including being expected to work long hours, to travel and relocate for work, and to prioritize work over family (Kelly et al. 2010).There is also a significant body of research demonstrating that the traits and abilities associated with successful leadership are more strongly associated with stereotypes of men than with stereotypes of women (e.g., Schein 1973; see also Heilman et al. 1995, Ryan et al. 2011).This manager = male association leads to gender biases in hiring practices, employee evaluations, and promotion processes that favor men over women (Eagly & Karau 2002, Heilman 1983).Over and above the specific ideals, organizational culture itself is often gendered, valuing competition, aggression, and contestation (e.g., Berdahl et al. 2018), even though there is evidence that such approaches are not necessarily associated with the best outcomes.For example, research suggests the benefits of (stereotypically feminine) transformational leadership styles over transactional ones (Eagly & Carli 2003), and case studies of the Lehman Brother collapse point to root problems in aggression and risk taking (see the testimony of L. Zingales in US House, Comm. Overs. Gov. Reform 2008, pp. 34-59).
Because of these masculine norms and cultures, women are frequently given advice to change to better meet these ideals: to be more confident and outspoken, to make more sacrifices, to take more risks, and to lead in particular ways.However, simply changing to fit masculine ideals is not so straightforward.There is a large body of evidence that demonstrates that when women act in more stereotypically masculine ways in the workplace-that is, when they do meet those ideals-they face penalties for this behavior (e.g., Cheryan & Markus 2020).
Work by Rudman and colleagues (e.g., Rudman & Phelan 2008, Rudman et al. 2012) describes the backlash that women face when they fail to behave in line with gender stereotypes.This backlash has consequences for all stages of the career trajectory, including negative economic outcomes for women relative to their male counterparts in hiring decisions (Rudman 1998, Rudman & Glick 2001, Williams & Tiedens 2016), salary negotiations ( Janoff-Bulman & Wade 1996), and promotions (Fiske et al. 1991, Heilman et al. 2004) as well as negative social outcomes such as their evaluation as leaders (Badura et al. 2018, Eagly et al. 1992) and more general perceptions of likability (e.g., Williams & Tiedens 2016).Unsurprisingly, this backlash also has consequences for women's job satisfaction and turnover intentions (e.g., Lyness & Thompson 1997, Stroh et al. 1996).Thus, women face a double bind: When they don't meet traditionally masculine ideals, they are asked to change, and when they do meet ideals, they face sanctions and punishment (Eagly & Karau 2002).

The Element of Choice
Another underlying factor to the fix-the-women approach is the assumption that the persistence of gender inequalities comes down to women's own career choices (e.g., Stephens & Levine 2011).There is a perception that, given that many countries have legislation in place to address issues of gender discrimination, any existing differences between outcomes for men and women must be due, in large part, to the career decisions that women make (e.g., Damore 2017).For example, it is argued that because many countries now mandate equal pay for equal work, any residual gender pay gap must come down to women choosing to go into low-paying jobs (Thomson 2006), choosing to work fewer hours, and choosing not to negotiate for higher salaries or put themselves forward for promotions (e.g., Blau & Kahn 2017).Key within these arguments is the claim that women choose to prioritize work-life balance over career ambition, and they choose not to make the sacrifices needed for success.
While of course women have agency, and individual women make choices everyday, these choices do not occur within a social vacuum, and a focus on women's choices may have many unintended consequences for women (e.g., Savani et al. 2011, Schieder & Gould 2016).In this review we aim to make two key points: (a) that women's career choices are shaped and constrained by the social context in which they are embedded, and (b) that women's choices are often reasonable responses to their experiences in the workplace.In this way, women's career choices may be seen as a coping strategy to the cultural and social context of the workplace (Fox 2017).To illustrate these points, we provide critical examples from two families of interventions: those designed to boost women's motivations and ambition, and those designed to provide women with the needed abilities to achieve these positions.

HOW CONTEXT SHAPES AND CONSTRAINS WOMEN'S MOTIVATIONS
There is a myriad of interventions that are designed to boost women's workplace motivation, particularly in areas in which they are underrepresented, such as in STEM (Schmader 2023) and in leadership (Mousa et al. 2021).One particularly visible example of motivational interventions is the bestselling book by former Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (2013), titled Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.The central "lean in" message focuses on empowering women's motivation and increasing their ambitions.This approach is illustrated by quotes from the book that have been turned into inspirational Internet memes, such as "If you're offered a seat on a rocket ship, don't ask what seat.Just get on." The assumption underlying these approaches is that women are lacking the drive and motivation that are necessary to enter or succeed in these areas.In this section we examine three ways in which this motivational focus plays itself out: (a) assumptions that women are not ambitious enough; (b) assumptions that they are motivated by factors other than career success, such as work-life balance; and, relatedly, (c) assumptions about women's unwillingness to make sacrifices for their careers.We consider each of these in turn.

WOMEN'S AMBITION
The persistence of gender inequalities, especially in areas of prestige and influence, is often explained by the fact that women and girls do not set their ambitions as high as men and boys do (Fels 2005, Paton 2006), and, as a corollary, that they opt out of the workplace at higher rates than their male colleagues (Belkin 2003), with opting out seen as a reflection of a lack of ambition.Such explanations are evident both in those who are trying to explain away gender inequalities, such as James Damore's Google memo in which he claims that men have a higher drive for status than women (Damore 2017), and in those who are trying the reduce inequalities, such as Sandberg's famous statement that "until women are as ambitious as men they're not going to achieve as much as men." 1  There is evidence to suggest that women, on average, do report lower levels of ambition than men (e.g., Van Vianen & Fischer 2002) and that they opt out of the workforce at higher rates (Antecol 2011).However, there are a number of reasons these differences may not reflect innate gender differences but instead reflect organization structures and culture (Kossek et al. 2017, Stone 2007, Zimmerman & Clark 2016).First, when women do opt out, they rarely leave the workplace altogether.Instead, they tend to continue their careers within other organizations (e.g., Boushey 2005) or start their own businesses (McDowell 2006).This redeployment suggests that women's lower ambition is associated with particular contexts and particular experiences rather than reflecting more generalized attitudes.Consistent with this, research suggests that many women report leaving work not only for family reasons (see the discussion on work-life balance below) but also because they lack the appropriate opportunities to progress, because their jobs are not meaningful or satisfying, or because they feel undervalued and lacking in opportunity (Hewlett & Luce 2005, Stone & Lovejoy 2004, Stroh et al. 1996).
Second, notions of ambition and success are bound up with gendered stereotypes and expectations.As we have seen above, both our prescriptive and descriptive stereotypes suggest that men are, and indeed should be, agentic, competitive, competent, and ambitious, while women are, and should be, warm and communal (e.g., Eagly & Steffen 1984, Heilman 2001, Schein 1973).
Moreover, there is a clear backlash against those women who do express ambition and seek power, with both social repercussions and career-limiting effects (e.g., Hall & Donaghue 2013, Okimoto & Brescoll 2010, Rudman & Glick 2001).
Exploring these explanations, Peters et al. ( 2012) conducted a series of studies with women in the surgical profession to examine the gendered rates of opting out within surgery and whether these may be explained by women's experiences within the workplace.These studies demonstrated that the intentions of female surgical trainees to opt out of the profession were due, at least in part, to their perceptions of a lack of fit between how they saw themselves and their perceptions of the ideal surgeon as being stereotypically masculine.Moreover, the fact that female surgeons perceived a greater lack of fit than their male colleagues had downstream consequences and helped explain women's lower levels of engagement and identification with surgery as a profession and their greater intentions to opt out.
Similarly, work by Begeny et al. (2018) looks at the motivation and engagement of veterinary professionals.This is an interesting sector, as it is a traditionally masculine field that women are now entering in large numbers.This research demonstrated that while female vets experienced lower motivation and ambition than their male colleagues, this was explained in large part by their experiences in the workplace, including not feeling like they fit in within the workplace, perceiving a lack of role models, and not feeling valued and admired by colleagues.

WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND SACRIFICE
Women's workplace choices related to issues of work-life balance are often used to explain continued workplace gender inequalities.In support of this, research demonstrates that concerns about work-life balance do indeed discourage women from seeking promotion and leadership roles and encourage part-time work (Lyonette 2015).However, the gendered natured of perceptions of work-life balance is not clear cut.While there is some evidence that women report lower levels of work-life balance (e.g., Crompton & Lyonette 2006), other studies demonstrate more similarity in men's and women's reported work-life balance (e.g., Bari & Robert 2016).
Where gender differences do occur, they are often discussed in relation to the domestic division of labor, such as household tasks and caring responsibilities, and women's choice to prioritize family duties over their careers.While there is no doubt that gender inequalities persist in the allocation and expectation of unpaid work outside of the workplace (Craig & Mullan 2010, Park et al. 2008), the focus on women's choices and on factors outside of the workplace in explaining the gendered nature of work-life balance is problematic (e.g., Sørensen 2017).We argue that the work side of the work-life equation also needs to be examined.
For example, Morgenroth et al. (2021) demonstrate, across three studies, that perceptions of work-life balance are not only a matter of balancing time but also a matter of balancing identity at home and at work.Importantly, issues about the availability of role models are a key determinant of perceptions of work-life balance.Across both survey and experimental studies, we demonstrated that gender differences in perceptions of work-life balance, are, at least in part, determined by women's perceptions of a lack of fit between themselves and the leaders within their organizations.In turn, this lack of fit leads to women perceiving an incompatibility between who they are at home and who they are at work.
These findings in relation to work-life incompatibility have important implications for how issues of work-life balance are addressed.Traditionally, work-life balance interventions are designed to address issues of time-primarily by giving women more time to undertake their domestic labor.However, Morgenroth et al. (2021) demonstrated that gendered differences in perceptions of work-life balance can be ameliorated by priming women with appropriate role models, such as attainable female leaders.
This type of analysis can be broadened from perceptions of work-life balance to analyses of women's willingness to make sacrifices for their careers.Many argue that women do not make the necessary sacrifices to climb the organizational ladder (Damore 2017), and this is borne out by data that show that men are more likely than women to work full-time, work longer hours, and do more overtime (OECD 2023).Women are less likely than men to travel for work and more likely to take flexible or less demanding work options (Dahm et al. 2019, Keene & Reynolds 2005).However, it is important to ask why these choices are made.
Research by Meeussen et al. (2022) examines why women report lower willingness to sacrifice for their careers compared to their male colleagues.Focusing on women in male-dominated careers, they demonstrated that women's unwillingness to make sacrifices was related to their experiences of workplace barriers-specifically, their direct experiences of gender discrimination and a lack of role models.These barriers were associated with women having lower expectations of succeeding in their careers and, critical to our argument, lower expectations that their sacrifices would lead them to success.It is perhaps no surprise, then, that these barriers and reduced expectations help explain women's lower willingness to make sacrifices for their careers.
Taken together, the studies outlined here provide evidence that women's motivations and ambitions are very much dependent on the contexts in which they are embedded: Treatment by colleagues, the availability of role models, perceptions of fit, and expectations of success all influence women's level of engagement, their willingness to sacrifice, and their perceptions of work-life balance.As a whole, they suggest that interventions designed to target women's motivations and ambitions through empowerment are unlikely to be fully successful.Moreover, a focus on the social mobility of individual women leaves the status quo untouched, which is problematic in a number of ways.For example, if we motivate individual women to leave the roles they currently occupy to take on more highly valued roles in science, technology, or leadership, we are left with the following problems: (a) We have done nothing to change the system that devalued women's roles in the first place; (b) those women who do not have the privilege to benefit from such interventions (such as those who face intersectional disadvantage) are left to undertake roles that remain devalued; and (c) where women do move into new roles, it is possible that these roles too will become devalued, as we have seen, for example, with education, general practice medicine, and veterinary practice (e.g., Smith 2006).

HOW CONTEXT SHAPES AND CONSTRAINS THE EXPRESSION OF WOMEN'S SKILLS AND ATTRIBUTES
In addition to interventions that target women's motivation and ambition, there are also workplace gender equality interventions that target women's skills and attributes.Many of these focus on skills that are seen to be critical for successful leadership, such as the ability to take risks and having an air of confidence.There are two potential issues here.The first is the unwarranted assumption that stereotypically masculine traits such as risk taking and confidence are inherently a part of good leadership, rather than just traits that reflect those who are already in leadership positions (Ryan et al. 2011, Schein 1973).The second is that these interventions are predicated on a deficit model of women's skills-one that assumes that women are fundamentally lacking in these traits and attributes, and they just need to be taught them.In what follows we examine an alternative explanation, that the expression of women's traits and abilities is very much shaped and constrained by the organizational context in which they are embedded.

RISK TAKING
One of the behavioral skills that is often seen as important for career success is risk taking.We define risk taking as the undertaking of actions that have the potential for positive outcomes (such as reaching a goal or gaining benefits) but also for negative outcomes (such as failure or incurring costs).Within the workplace, risk-taking behaviors may include personal career decisions, such as aggressive pay negotiations, taking on a new role, or putting oneself forward for promotion, or taking risks on behalf of the organization, such as a leader advocating for a radical change agenda or corporate strategy.
Not only is risk taking seen as career enhancing, but it is also a stereotypically gendered trait, one that continues to be seen as a core aspect of the masculine stereotype and as being incompatible with the feminine stereotype (Bem 1974, Ellemers 2018).Indeed, women's (purported) risk aversion has been used to explain many gender inequalities in career outcomes (Arch 1993, Croson & Gneezy 2009), including the gender pay gap (e.g., Carter et al. 2017) and women's underrepresentation in leadership roles (Ertac & Gurdal 2012).
These risk-based explanations for gender inequalities have translated into risk-focused interventions and initiatives designed to increase women's skills and abilities in this area.Indeed, Sandberg's (2013) lean-in message extends from ambition and motivation to the advice that women should address their fear of failure and take more risks (Warrell 2013), with quotes such as "Fortune does favor the bold and you'll never know what you're capable of if you don't try" or "What would you do if you weren't afraid?" (see Sandberg 2013).Similar interventional tactics have been used to reduce risk aversion in female entrepreneurs (Nyanga & Chindanya 2021) and to increase risk taking in women in leadership positions (KPMG 2019).
There are two things that we can take issue with in this approach: (a) Are women risk averse?(b) Is risk-taking really a valuable trait in the workplace?We consider each of these in turn.
Historically, the finding that women are, on average, less risk taking than men has been well established.This argument tends to be focused on lab-based economic games or on a limited scope of workplace behaviors, such as investment decision making or leaders taking risks on behalf of their team or organization (Croson & Gneezy 2009, Eckel & Grossman 2008, Ertac & Gurdal 2012, Faccio et al. 2016, Meyers-Levy & Loken 2015).
More recently, however, these claims have been called into question on the basis of methodological issues and publication bias (e.g., Holzmeister & Stefan 2021, Nelson 2014, Pedroni et al. 2017) as well as questions as to whether gender differences generalize across different risk-taking domains (Hanoch et al. 2006).Indeed, research demonstrates that gender differences in risk taking tend to be minimal or nonexistent on certain behaviors, such as drinking and smoking (Byrnes et al. 1999), and in some domains, such as social risk taking (Weber et al. 2002).
Thus, if we are to understand gender differences in risk-taking behavior, it is crucial to examine the ways in which risk taking is operationalized.Research by Morgenroth and colleagues (2018) demonstrates that classic measures of risk propensity tend to focus on stereotypically masculine risks, such as betting on a sporting event or riding a motorbike without a helmet [e.g., the domainspecific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale; Weber et al. 2002].However, risky behaviors that are more normative for women, such as horseback riding or going on an extreme diet, not only are not recognized as risky but also reveal that women are more risk taking or equally risk taking compared to men.These findings suggest that gendered roles and stereotypes have an impact upon the risks that women and men are likely to take (e.g., Harris & Jenkins 2006) and even what we recognize to be a risk.
In addition, gender roles and stereotypes may affect the exposure women and men have to risk (see, for example, work on the glass cliff showing that women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions in times of crisis; Ryan & Haslam 2005, 2007) as well as the costs and benefits that women and men experience when taking risks.Given that risk taking is a core part of masculinity, we may expect that women, compared to men, incur greater penalties and fewer rewards for taking career or workplace risks.Indeed, research demonstrates that women experience backlash when they are confident or self-promoting (Rudman 1998, Rudman & Glick 2001), when they undertake pay or other economic negotiations (Bowles et al. 2007, Mazei et al. 2015), and when their risk taking leads to unsuccessful outcomes (Brescoll et al. 2010).Given these gendered outcomes, it is perhaps unsurprising if women are less likely to take certain risks.
To examine the gendered consequences (both anticipated and experienced) of risk taking at work, and their impact on future risk taking, Morgenroth et al. (2022) designed a series of survey and experimental studies.The authors asked women and men about their experiences of workplace risk taking-including asking for a pay rise, being vocal about one's career goals, and putting oneself forward for a promotion.When the participants were asked to anticipate the consequences for risks with which they had no prior experience, no gender differences were apparent.However, gender differences were evident when participants were asked about the actual consequences of workplace risk taking.Here, women reported fewer positive consequences of risk taking compared to men, including fewer instances of obtaining the desired outcome, positive economic and professional outcomes, and positive social outcomes.Importantly, these less positive consequences translated into women reporting that they would be less likely to engage in risk taking in the future.Overall, these studies suggest that while the process of evaluating the costs and benefits of risk is similar for women and men, the actual costs and benefits of risk differ.Thus, rather than simply being risk averse, women avoid risks because of a lack of rewards for their past risk taking: Why would one continue to take risks if one isn't rewarded for them?

CONFIDENCE AND THE IMPOSTOR SYNDROME
Closely linked to the initiatives directed toward women's risk taking in the workplace are those related to issues of confidence.Such approaches often provide remedial advice to address women's (purported) risk aversion and their underrepresentation in leadership roles by boosting women's confidence, as proposed for example in the New York Times Best Seller The Confidence Code (Kay & Shipman 2014).These interventions often start with a recognition that the key to success is confidence-what Gill & Orgad (2017) describe as confidence culture-as evidenced by all those confident, successful men at the top.They then provide tips to help women elevate their selfassurance and banish their impostor syndrome.This focus on women's confidence is also evident in the academic literature, with research examining women's underconfidence (e.g., Carlin et al. 2018) and their underestimation of their own leadership ability (e.g., Herbst 2020) and their skills and abilities (e.g., Vajapey et al. 2020).
Amid a lot of work in this space, the work on impostor syndrome is notable.Work on impostor syndrome focuses on a type of personality trait whereby individuals experience worries and selfdoubts about their own abilities and worth (e.g., Clance & Imes 1978).Those with impostor syndrome may feel that their accomplishments are undeserved, or they may make attributions about their successes that rely on good fortune or on circumstances outside of their control.Key here is that these worries lead to concerns that others may expose them to be a fake or a fraud.
The tendency to make causal attributions about one's success can be a gendered phenomenon, with some evidence that women are more likely to attribute their successes to luck or other external forces (e.g., Beyer 1998, Hyde et al. 1990).In a similar vein, while impostor syndrome was first identified in women (Clance & Imes 1978), the evidence for gender differences in impostor syndrome is mixed (e.g., Bravata et al. 2020).Despite this, the impostor syndrome is frequently linked to women (and other minoritized groups; Tulshyan & Burey 2021), often in the context of the workplace (e.g., Cokley et al. 2015).Indeed, within the gender diversity literature there are frequent testimonials of women who have struggled with impostor feelings (e.g., Michelle Obama, Sheryl Sandberg, Charlize Theron) alongside inspiring stories of those who have triumphed over them.
It is important to note the use of the term "syndrome" in this context.Syndrome is suggestive of a medical or psychological condition, one that requires diagnosis and treatment.In this way, impostor syndrome is conceptualized as an individual-level problem that needs fixing-just as we have seen with other barriers that women face.In response to this framing, there are a myriad of initiatives designed to help individual women overcome their impostor syndrome (e.g., Chandra et al. 2019).Some are targeted at increasing women's confidence, others address problematic personality traits such as perfectionism and neuroticism, and yet others focus on self-compassion or on changing mindsets.
However, if we are to look at impostor syndrome in the context of a gender equality discourse, we must go beyond seeing it as a dysfunctional individual problem that holds back individual women (Mullangi & Jagsi 2019).Instead, we must recognize that impostor feelings can be a result of social and organizational cultures, such as masculine workplace cultures (e.g., Feenstra et al. 2020, Tulshyan & Burey 2021).Within leadership roles, impostor feelings may be associated with the elevated expectations and high visibility associated with leadership roles (Kark et al. 2022).In this way, if women are embedded in masculine workplace cultures and surrounded by masculine ideals of leadership and success, it is perhaps no wonder that they question their abilities and accomplishments and worry about being seen as an impostor.
It is also the case that one's experiences and treatment within the workplace will affect one's feelings about one's abilities and accomplishments.C.T. Begeny, S. Feenstra & M.K. Ryan (manuscript in preparation) demonstrate in both longitudinal and experimental studies that impostor feelings are elicited (and stymied) by treatment by others.For example, their research demonstrated that, over time, impostor feelings increase when others fail to treat someone with admiration or make them feel devalued, for example by not coming to them for advice or asking for their opinion (also called distinctive treatment; Begeny et al. 2021).Moreover, experimental studies demonstrated that impostor feelings can be ameliorated when individuals experience positive distinctive treatment from work colleagues (Begeny et al. 2021).
Taken as a whole, this line of research suggests that seeing impostor syndrome as an individual dysfunction that needs fixing with individual-level interventions, such as confidence training, is unlikely to be effective.In doing so we may pathologize feelings that are real and rational responses to workplace experiences.Instead, conceptualizing impostor feelings as being symptomatic of dysfunctional organizational cultures and structures, as well as of treatment from coworkers, squarely places the onus of change on the shoulders of the organization rather than on the women themselves.Thus, it is systemic, cultural change that is needed in order for expectations and norms to be inclusive and for coworkers to be valued and respected.

IS AUTHENTICITY A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO FIXING WOMEN?
While interventions and initiatives that attempt to fix women have been extremely popular responses to workplace gender inequality, they have come under fire.One criticism is that, alongside the previously discussed issues with a stagnating status quo and a reification of masculine norms and ideals in the workplace, the attempts to make women fit with masculine ideals does not allow women to be authentic in the workplace (e.g., Dormanen et al. 2020).Such criticism has led some organizations to shift from focusing on leaning in to focusing on encouraging employees to be authentic at work (e.g., Goff & Jones 2005, Rosh & Offerman 2013).
Indeed, authenticity has become quite the buzzword in workplace contexts, with claims that authentic workers can lead to increases in productivity and improve employees job satisfaction and well-being (Faison Hewlin 2020, Henley 2019).One popular example of authenticity rhetoric is Brené Brown's women's empowerment approach, which has its own series of memes and inspirational quotes, including "Authenticity is a collection of choices that we have to make every day.It's about the choice to show up and be real.The choice to be honest.The choice to let our true selves be seen" (Brown 2010, p. 67).While few can disagree that authenticity is, on the face of it, a good thing, we have yet again a focus on women's own choices-this time their choice to be authentic.
Indeed, an authenticity approach has its own set of problems.One is that as long as there are masculine ideals in place within organizations, it will be easier for some people to be authentic than for others (Aday & Schmader 2019, Schmader & Sedikides 2018).For those who sit outside of these ideals, and for those who are historically marginalized or excluded, there may be backlash for authentic behavior, what Hewlett (2014) calls the authenticity trap.Furthermore, approaches to workplace authenticity tend to frame authenticity as an individual phenomenon, again placing the onus on the shoulders of the individual (Schmader & Sedikides 2018).Such conceptualizations overlook the responsibility that organizations must take in facilitating an individual's ability to be their authentic selves at work as well as the power they have to constrain that authenticity.
One demonstration of the importance of organizational context on workplace authenticity is research by A.N. Fisher, M.K. Ryan & T. Schmader (manuscript in preparation) which shifts the focus from how individual employees can be authentic to how the organizational context shapes and constrains authenticity.Across a series of studies, this research demonstrates that authenticity is a better predictor of employee job satisfaction and commitment when it is characterized as a feature of the context that organizations can facilitate or constrain, rather than simply as an individual difference variable.Moreover, in the context of workplace gender inequalities, in a sample of female employees, this research finds that authenticity at the organizational level affects workplace attitudes and behaviors, in part, because it influences the degree to which women perceive their fit within the organization.
As a whole, the studies described in this section demonstrate that addressing workplace gender inequalities through a model that sees a deficit in women's skills and abilities is unlikely to be successful.We have seen how individuals' expression of traits such as risk taking and confidence (as well as feelings of impostorism) is determined by the organizational structures and cultures in which they find themselves.Just as with motivation and ambition, how people are treated by their colleagues, perceptions of fitting in, and the presence of inspiring and attainable role models impact on their willingness and ability to express particular traits and abilities in the workplace.

CONCLUSIONS
The explosion of interventions designed to address workplace gender inequalities is a positive step that will hopefully get us closer to gender parity; but to avoid wasting the time and resources (and goodwill) invested, we must ensure that these interventions are targeted at the root cause of gender inequalities, that is, social and organizational structures and culture (see Figure 1).We have seen how workplace contexts (and social contexts more broadly, including the domestic sphere) have very real consequences for women's career opportunities, shaping and constraining their motivations, their career choices, and the expression of their traits and abilities.
Attempts to motivate and upskill women are, for the most part, well meaning, and there is no doubt that such approaches have benefited many women individually-indeed, everyone can benefit from a bit of encouragement and training.However, such an individual-level approach is not a sustainable nor an effective solution against persistent systemic inequalities.Indeed, we run the risk of empowering and motivating women and then sending them straight back into systems  Interventions designed to fix women focus on the symptoms and outcomes of structural and systemic gender inequalities rather than on their root causes.
where they will continue to face barriers, experience discrimination, and encounter backlash leveled at their newly confident selves.It is also important to note that the women most likely to benefit from individual-level interventions are those women who enjoy the most privilege within organizations-white professional middle-and upper-class women (Opara et al. 2020, Ryan 2022, Wong et al. 2022).
To conclude, fixing women is at best misguided and at worst is likely to exacerbate the discrimination women face in the workplace (Kim et al. 2018).We end with an evidence-based call for systemic change.Our interventional attention should shift from the women who face inequalities to the embedded systems that perpetuate gender inequality (e.g., Ellemers 2014, Lau et al. 2022).Such interventions include, but are not limited to, shifting societal norms and stereotypes about gender (including binary views of gender; Morgenroth & Ryan 2018, 2021), about ideal workers, and about what leadership and success look like; more equal division of labor in the home; the valuing of care work (both within and outside of the domestic sphere); the provision of parental leave and affordable childcare; and debunking the myth of meritocracy.In this vein, there are a wealth of evidence-based interventions that seek to address structural and cultural barriers to workplace gender equality.For example, there are interventions that seek to dismantle gender roles and stereotypes (e.g., Cheryan & Markus 2020, Croft et al. 2021); others seek to educate about gender bias (e.g., Moss-Racusin et al. 2018, Zawadzki et al. 2014); still others work on the provision of role models (e.g., Gartzia et al. 2021, Herrmann et al. 2016, Shin et al. 2016).
Finally, it is important to note that gender discrimination cannot be addressed in isolation but rather needs to be fought alongside other forms of oppression and discrimination (Crenshaw 2017, McCormick-Huhn et al. 2019), including those based on race and ethnicity, sexuality and gender identity, disability, age, and socioeconomic status.Instead of telling women to lean in, a more successful strategy would be to encourage organizations to give all women something more to lean toward.