Challenges Women Experience in Leadership Careers: An Integrative Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. External and Internal Challenges beyond the Glass Ceiling
2.1. Female Leadership Challenges as External Factors
2.1.1. Gender Biases and Stereotypes
2.1.2. Glass Ceiling and Sticky Floor
2.1.3. Leadership Labyrinth
2.1.4. Female Leadership Prototypes
2.1.5. Think Manager–Think Male
2.1.6. Think Crisis–Think Female
2.1.7. Double Bind
2.1.8. Backlash
2.1.9. The Lack of Leadership Development
2.1.10. Glass Cliff
2.1.11. Queen Bee Syndrome
2.2. Female Leadership Challenges as Internal Factors
2.2.1. Self-Gender Stereotypes
2.2.2. Tokenism
2.2.3. Gender Stereotype Threat
2.2.4. Gender Stereotype Internalization
3. The Integrative Model
3.1. Gender Stereotypes as Internal Factors
3.2. External Factors Affecting Women’s Leadership Careers
3.3. Internal Factors Affecting Women’s Leadership Careers
3.4. Vicious Cycle That Manifests Leadership Challenges for Women
4. Organizational Practices That Promote Women’s Leadership Careers
5. Future Directions
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cook, A.; Glass, C. Between a rock and a hard place: Managing diversity in a shareholder society. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2009, 19, 393–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Richard, O.C.; Triana, M.C.; Zhang, X. The performance impact of gender diversity in the top management team and board of directors: A multiteam systems approach. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2022, 61, 157–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, A.; Glass, C. Women and top leadership positions: Towards an institutional analysis. Gend. Work. Organ. 2014, 21, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, A.; Glass, C. Leadership change and shareholder value: How markets react to the appointments of women. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 50, 501–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. The leadership styles of women and men. J. Soc. Issues 2001, 57, 781–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ely, R.J.; Ibarra, H.; Kolb, D.M. Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2011, 10, 474–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, M.E. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 2012, 32, 113–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Karau, S.J. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 2002, 109, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acker, J. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gend. Soc. 1990, 4, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ridgeway, C.L. Gender, status, and leadership. J. Soc. Issues 2001, 57, 637–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrison, A.M. New solutions to the same old glass ceiling. Women Manag. Rev. 1992, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzi, F.; Heilman, M.E. Breaking the glass ceiling: For one and all? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 120, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sekiguchi, T.; De Cuyper, N. Addressing new leadership challenges in a rapidly changing world. Appl. Psychol. 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, C.L. The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Soc. Probl. 1992, 39, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanter, R.M. Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. Am. J. Sociol. 1977, 82, 965–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruckmüller, S.; Ryan, M.K.; Rink, F.; Haslam, S.A. Beyond the glass ceiling: The glass cliff and its lessons for organizational policy. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2014, 8, 202–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, C.C.; Swim, J.K.; Jacobs, R.R. Evaluating gender biases on actual job performance of real people: A meta-analysis 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 30, 2194–2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortina, C.; Rodríguez, J.; González, M.J. Mind the job: The role of occupational characteristics in explaining gender discrimination. Soc. Indic. Res. 2021, 156, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.; Huang, L. Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organ. Sci. 2018, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batara, M.A.; Ngo, J.M.; See, K.A.; Erasga, D. Second generation gender bias: The effects of the invisible bias among mid-level women managers. Asia-Pac. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2018, 18, 138–151. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332154630 (accessed on 20 March 2023).
- Fischbach, A.; Lichtenthaler, P.W.; Horstmann, N. Leadership and Gender Stereotyping of Emotions. J. Pers. Psychol. 2015, 14, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, M.K.; Haslam, S.A.; Hersby, M.D.; Bongiorno, R. Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koenig, A.M.; Eagly, A.H.; Mitchell, A.A.; Ristikari, T. Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 137, 616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braddy, P.W.; Sturm, R.E.; Atwater, L.; Taylor, S.N.; McKee, R.A. Gender bias still plagues the workplace: Looking at derailment risk and performance with self–other ratings. Group Organ. Manag. 2020, 45, 315–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ridgeway, C.L.; Correll, S.J. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gend. Soc. 2004, 18, 510–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolfram, H.-J.; Gratton, L. Gender role self-concept, categorical gender, and transactional-transformational leadership: Implications for perceived workgroup performance. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2014, 21, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, M.E. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 2001, 57, 657–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, M.E.; Wallen, A.S.; Fuchs, D.; Tamkins, M.M. Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, M.E.; Okimoto, T.G. Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Correll, S.J. Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2004, 69, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dreher, G.F. Breaking the glass ceiling: The effects of sex ratios and work-life programs on female leadership at the top. Hum. Relat. 2003, 56, 541–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibarra, R.J.E.; Herminia, K.; Deborah, M. Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2013, 91, 60–66. [Google Scholar]
- Carli, L.L.; Eagly, A.H. Women face a labyrinth: An examination of metaphors for women leaders. Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2016, 31, 514–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H. Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology. Am. Psychol. 1997, 52, 1380–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H. Few Women at the Top: How Role Incongruity Produces Prejudice and the Glass Ceiling. In Leadership and Power: Identity, Leadership, and Power; van Knippenberg, D., Hogg, M.A., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2003; pp. 79–93. [Google Scholar]
- Schock, A.K.; Gruber, F.M.; Scherndl, T.; Ortner, T.M. Tempering agency with communion increases women’s leadership emergence in all-women groups: Evidence for role congruity theory in a field setting. Leadersh. Q. 2019, 30, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brescoll, V.L. Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. Leadersh. Q. 2016, 27, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacomin, M.; Tskhay, K.O.; Rule, N.O. Gender stereotypes explain different mental prototypes of male and female leaders. Leadersh. Q. 2022, 33, 101578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Carli, L.L. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ridwan, R.; Sudjarwo, S.; Sulpakar, S.; Hariri, H.; Tusianah, R.; Isnainy, U.C.; Zainaro, M.A.; Herdian, H.; Rahman, B. The Effects of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership on Principal’s Self-Efficacy. Wseas Trans. Adv. Eng. Educ. 2022, 19, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, S.J.; Galvin, B.M.; Lange, D. CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Pers. Psychol. 2012, 65, 565–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C.; Van Engen, M.L. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 129, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sims, C.; Carter, A.; Moore De Peralta, A. Do servant, transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant leadership styles influence mentoring competencies for faculty? A study of a gender equity leadership development program. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2021, 32, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulich, C.; Gartzia, L.; Komarraju, M.; Aelenei, C. Contextualizing the think crisis-think female stereotype in explaining the glass cliff: Gendered traits, gender, and type of crisis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgenroth, T.; Kirby, T.A.; Ryan, M.K.; Sudkämper, A. The who, when, and why of the glass cliff phenomenon: A meta-analysis of appointments to precarious leadership positions. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 146, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acker, J.A. Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gend. Soc. 2006, 20, 441–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Adm. Q. 1993, 17, 112–121. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40862298 (accessed on 5 April 2023). [CrossRef]
- Van Dierendonck, D.; Stam, D.; Boersma, P.; de Windt, N.; Alkema, J. Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 544–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Johnson, B.T. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 108, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemoine, G.J.; Hartnell, C.A.; Leroy, H. Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2019, 13, 148–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemoine, G.J.; Blum, T.C. Servant leadership, leader gender, and team gender role: Testing a female advantage in a cascading model of performance. Pers. Psychol. 2021, 74, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, S.; Jena, L.K. Does meaningful work explains the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour? Vikalpa J. Decis. Mak. 2019, 44, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Shin, M. The effectiveness of transformational leadership on empowerment: The roles of gender and gender dyads. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 24, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J.; Zhao, H.; Henderson, D. Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadersh. Q. 2008, 19, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellemers, N.; Rink, F.; Derks, B.; Ryan, M.K. Women in high places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Res. Organ. Behav. 2012, 32, 163–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, R.J. Backlash in the workplace. Women Manag. Rev. 2005, 20, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schein, V.E. A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. J. Soc. Issues 2001, 57, 675–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciancetta, L.M.; Roch, S.G. Backlash in performance feedback: Deepening the understanding of the role of gender in performance appraisal. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 60, 641–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Pater, I.E.; Van Vianen, A.E.M.; Bechtoldt, M.N. Gender differences in job challenge: A matter of task allocation. Gend. Work. Organ. 2010, 17, 433–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stichman, A.J.; Hassell, K.D.; Archbold, C.A. Strength in numbers? A test of Kanter’s theory of tokenism. J. Crim. Justice 2010, 38, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samuelson, H.L.; Levine, B.R.; Barth, S.E.; Wessel, J.L.; Grand, J.A. Exploring women’s leadership labyrinth: Effects of hiring and developmental opportunities on gender stratification. Leadersh. Q. 2019, 30, 101314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, E.B.; Botsford, W.; Hebl, M.R.; Kazama, S.; Dawson, J.F.; Perkins, A. Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 1835–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, M.K.; Haslam, S.A. The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. Br. J. Manag. 2005, 16, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, M.K.; Haslam, S.A. The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 549–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glass, C.; Cook, A. Leading at the top: Understanding women’s challenges above the glass ceiling. Leadersh. Q. 2016, 27, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eble, A.; Hu, F. Stereotypes, role models, and the formation of beliefs. CDEP-CGEG Work. Pap. 2017, 43, 1–63. [Google Scholar]
- Rudman, L.A. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ely, R.J. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Adm. Sci. Q. 1994, 39, 203–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Carli, L.L. Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2007, 85, 147–162. [Google Scholar]
- Derks, B.; Van Laar, C.; Ellemers, N. The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. Leadersh. Q. 2016, 27, 456–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derks, B.; Van Laar, C.; Ellemers, N.; De Groot, K. Gender-bias primes elicit queen-bee responses among senior policewomen. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 1243–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoshikawa, K.; Kokubo, A.; Wu, C.-H. A cultural perspective on gender inequity in STEM: The Japanese context. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2018, 11, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arvate, P.R.; Galilea, G.W.; Todescat, I. The queen bee: A myth? The effect of top-level female leadership on subordinate females. Leadersh. Q. 2018, 29, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derks, B.; Ellemers, N.; Van Laar, C.; De Groot, K. Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 50, 519–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faniko, K.; Ellemers, N.; Derks, B.; Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. Nothing changes, really: Why women who break through the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 43, 638–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hentschel, T.; Heilman, M.E.; Peus, C.V. The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoyt, C.L.; Murphy, S.E. Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2016, 27, 387–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kossek, E.E.; Su, R.; Wu, L. “Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating perspectives on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 228–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kehr, H.M.; Graff, D.; Bakaç, C. Followers’ Motives as Moderators of the Effects of Transformational Leadership Behaviors on Follower Outcomes and Leaders’ Influence. J. Bus. Psychol. 2022, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohl, S.; Desrumaux, P.; Vonthron, A.-M. The mediating effect on self-efficacy in the relationship between gender identity and leadership style. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2020, 15, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgenroth, T.; Ryan, M.K.; Sønderlund, A.L. Think Manager–Think Parent? Investigating the fatherhood advantage and the motherhood penalty using the Think Manager–Think Male paradigm. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 51, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, E.B.; Hebl, M.R.; George, J.M.; Matusik, S.F. Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of a psychological climate of gender inequity. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 482–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benan, K.Y.; Olca, S.D. Gender Based Tokenism: A Qualitative Research on Female-Dominated and Male-Dominated Professions. Istanb. Manag. J. 2020, 88, 85–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Logel, C.; Walton, G.M.; Spencer, S.J.; Iserman, E.C.; von Hippel, W.; Bell, A.E. Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 96, 1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davies, P.G.; Spencer, S.J.; Steele, C.M. Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 88, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madsen, S.R.; Andrade, M.S. Unconscious gender bias: Implications for women’s leadership development. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2018, 12, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Small, D.A.; Gelfand, M.; Babcock, L.; Gettman, H. Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 93, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hentschel, T.; Braun, S.; Peus, C.; Frey, D. Sounds like a fit! Wording in recruitment advertisements and recruiter gender affect women’s pursuit of career development programs via anticipated belongingness. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 60, 581–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritz, C.; van Knippenberg, D. Gender and leadership aspiration: Supervisor gender, support, and job control. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 69, 741–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibarra, H.; Petriglieri, J. Impossible selves: Image strategies and identity threat in professional women’s career transitions. INSEAD Work. Pap. 2016, 12, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karelaia, N.; Guillén, L. Me, a woman and a leader: Positive social identity and identity conflict. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2014, 125, 204–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, M.E.; Eagly, A.H. Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2008, 1, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, P.N. Replacing housework in the service economy: Gender, class, and race-ethnicity in service spending. Gend. Soc. 1998, 12, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stainback, K.; Kwon, S. Female leaders, organizational power, and sex segregation. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2012, 639, 217–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorman, E.H. Work uncertainty and the promotion of professional women: The case of law firm partnership. Soc. Forces 2006, 85, 865–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorman, E.H.; Kmec, J.A. Hierarchical rank and women’s organizational mobility: Glass ceilings in corporate law firms. Am. J. Sociol. 2009, 114, 1428–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambliss, E.; Uggen, C. Men and women of elite law firms: Reevaluating Kanter’s legacy. Law Soc. Inq. 2000, 25, 41–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, K.; Boyle, B.; Bhardwaj, S.; editors. Impacts of supportive HR practices and organisational climate on the attitudes of HR managers towards gender diversity–a mediated model approach. Evid.-Based HRM 2021, 9, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, P.K.; Roberts, H.; Stainback, K. Does women’s board representation affect non-managerial gender inequality? Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 60, 659–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konrad, A.M.; Kramer, V.; Erkut, S. The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organ. Dyn. 2008, 37, 145–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoftede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gannouni, K.; Ramboarison-Lalao, L. Examining gender effects on leadership among future managers: Comparing Hofstede’s masculine vs. feminine countries. Manag. Int. 2019, 23, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enkhzul, G. A study of international human resource management in a japanese company: A case study from mongolia. Hum. Sociol. Res. Collect. 2020, 15, 139–165. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Enkhzul, G. A Case Study of the Human Resource Management System in Japanese Investment Companies in Mongolia -Focusing on Female Labor. Hum. Sociol. Res. Collect. 2018, 13, 27–55. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Fritz, C.; Van Knippenberg, D. Gender and leadership aspiration: The impact of work–life initiatives. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 57, 855–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalysh, K.; Kulik, C.T.; Perera, S. Help or hindrance? Work–life practices and women in management. Leadersh. Q. 2016, 27, 504–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowles, H.R.; Thomason, B.; Macias-Alonso, I. When gender matters in organizational negotiations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2022, 9, 199–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Joshi, P.; Wakslak, C.; Wu, A. Sizing up entrepreneurial potential: Gender differences in communication and investor perceptions of long-term growth and scalability. Acad. Manag. J. 2021, 64, 716–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
External Factors | ||
---|---|---|
Challenges | Definition | Main Studies |
Gender biases | Unconscious discrimination or prejudice is the mistreatment of an individual based on their gender. | Ridgeway (2001); Lee and Huang (2018); Cortina (2021) |
Gender stereotypes | Gender-based beliefs and expectations about female and male characteristics and behaviors. “Socially determined ways of behaving” make an individual more or less socially acceptable based on gender. Women’s leadership is based on gender stereotypes. | Eagly (1997); Heilman (2001); Eagly and Karau (2002); Eagly (2003); Heilman and Eagly (2008); Koeing, Eagly, and Mitchel (2011); Heilman (2012); Hentschel, Heilman, and Peus (2019) |
Glass ceiling | The barriers and obstacles that are unique to women that make it difficult for women to be active in management and leadership positions. | Morrison (1992); Eagly (2003); Eagly and Carli (2007) |
Sticky floor | Situations in which women are not able to overcome the glass ceiling. | Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb (2013); Bruckmüller, Ryan, Rink, and Haslam (2014) |
Leadership labyrinth | The complex and challenging path that female leaders must navigate to be effective in their roles, which shows that women’s careers follow paths that are different from men’s career paths. | Eagly and Carli (2007); Carli and Eagly (2016); Samuelson, Levine, Barth, Wessel, and Grand (2019) |
Female leadership prototypes | General stereotypes and images of leadership styles for female leaders. | Eagly and Karau (2002); Brescoll (2016); Giacomin, Tskhay, and Rule (2022) |
Think manager–think male | The belief that the right manager or leader is someone with masculine qualities and who is agentic, which indicates that women are not suited for leadership, whereas men are suited for leadership. | Gartzia, Ryan, Balluerka, and Aritzeta (2012); Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, and Bongiorno (2011) |
Think crisis–think female | The tendency to evaluate women more favorably than men in crisis situations. | Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, and Bongiorno (2011); Ellemers, Rink, Derks, and Ryan (2012) |
Double bind | A situation in which a woman faces a decision that contradicts her gender stereotype, where the two options conflict. | Peterson, Galvin, and Lange (2012); Lee and Huang (2018) |
Backlash | Adverse social reaction to women who violate gender role norms and behave in a masculine manner. | Rudman (1998); Burke (2005); Ellemers (2012) |
The lack of leadership development | The tendency to provide women with fewer leadership development opportunities than men receive, which can result in their inability to become capable leaders. | De Pater, Van Vianen, and Bechtoldt (2010); Stichman, Hassell, and Archbold (2010); Samuelson, Levine, Barth, Wessel, and Grand (2019); Benan and Olca (2020) |
Glass cliff | The phenomenon of women being promoted in situations of poor corporate performance and unstable employment. | Ryan and Hassam (2005); Ryan and Hassam (2007); Mulcahy and Linehan (2014); Morgenroth, Kirby, Ryan, and Sudkämper (2020); Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, and Bongiorno (2011) |
Queen bee syndrome | The excessive competitive or hostile attitudes of female leaders toward their subordinates and colleagues of the same gender. | Derks, Ellemers, van Laar, and Groot (2011); Yoshikawa, Kokubo, and Wu (2018); Faniko, Ellemers, Derks, and Lorenzi-Cioldi (2017) |
Internal Factors | ||
Challenges | Definition | Main Studies |
Self-gender stereotypes | The unconscious development of gender stereotypical attitudes and behaviors. | Hentschel, Heilman, and Peus (2019); Braddy, Sturm, Atwater, Taylor, and Mckee (2020); Morgenroth, Ryan, and Sønderlund (2021) |
Tokenism | Situations in which women often find themselves in the minority and face challenges that can hinder their full participation and engagement in various contexts. | Kanter (1977); Elvira and Cohen (2001); King, Hebl, George, and Matusik (2012) |
Gender stereotype threat | The phenomenon where individuals experience anxiety and fear of confirming negative gender stereotypes when performing tasks that are believed to be associated with their gender. | Logel, Walton, Spencer, Iserman, von Hippel, and Bell (2009); Hoyt and Murphy (2016) |
Gender stereotype internalization | The process whereby individuals internalize societal gender norms and expectations that can lead to the development of gender identity and gender role behavior. | Fritz and van Knippenberg (2020); Hentschel, Braun, Peus, and Frey (2021) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Galsanjigmed, E.; Sekiguchi, T. Challenges Women Experience in Leadership Careers: An Integrative Review. Merits 2023, 3, 366-389. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits3020021
Galsanjigmed E, Sekiguchi T. Challenges Women Experience in Leadership Careers: An Integrative Review. Merits. 2023; 3(2):366-389. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits3020021
Chicago/Turabian StyleGalsanjigmed, Enkhzul, and Tomoki Sekiguchi. 2023. "Challenges Women Experience in Leadership Careers: An Integrative Review" Merits 3, no. 2: 366-389. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits3020021
APA StyleGalsanjigmed, E., & Sekiguchi, T. (2023). Challenges Women Experience in Leadership Careers: An Integrative Review. Merits, 3(2), 366-389. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits3020021