Combating Gender Bias in Modern Workplaces

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


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


Bias Stereotypes Work and occupations Organizations 


  1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs and bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benard, S., & Correll, S. J. (2010). Normative discrimination and the motherhood penalty. Gender & Society, 24(5), 616–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, J., Hamit Fisek, M., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation-states approach. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Bielby, W. T. (2000). Minimizing workplace gender and racial bias. Contemporary Sociology, 29(1), 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 707–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castilla, E. J. (2015). Accounting for the gap: A firm study manipulating organizational accountability and transparency in pay decisions. Organization Science, 26, 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Catalyst. (2012). Catalyst census: Fortune 500 women executive officers and top earners. (
  10. Chen, A. S. (1999). Lives at the center of the periphery, lives at the periphery of the center: Chinese American Masculinities and bargaining with hegemony. Gender & Society, 13(5), 584–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clayman Institute for Gender Research. (2015). Assessing performance and potential. See Bias Block Bias Toolkits. (
  13. Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, M., & Mount, L. (1996). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Correll, S. J. (2017). SWS 2016 Feminist Lecture: Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces: A small wins approach to organizational change. Gender & Society, 31(6), 725–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Correll, S., & Simard, C. (2016). Research: Vague feedback is holding women back. Harvard Business Review. (
  20. Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015). Rage against the iron cage: The varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 1014–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2015). Condoning stereotypes? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fassiotto, M., Hamel, E. O., Ku, M., Correll, S., Grewal, D., Lavori, P. … Valantine, H. (2016). Women in academic medicine: Measuring stereotype threat among junior faculty. Journal of Women’s Health, 25(3), 292–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(3), 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of ‘Blind’ auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90, 715–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heilman, M. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(1), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ibarra, H., Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010, September). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 80–85.Google Scholar
  36. Ibarra, H., Ely, R. J. & Kolb, D. (2013, September). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review, 91, 60–66.Google Scholar
  37. Ito, T. A., & Urland, G. R. (2003). Race and gender on the brain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 616–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kanter, R. M. (1975). Women and the structure of organizations: Explorations in theory and behavior. In R. M. Kanter & M. Millman (Eds.), Another Voice. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  40. Kelly, E. L., Ammons, S. K., Chermack, K., & Moen, P. (2010). Gendered challenge, gendered response: Confronting the ideal worker norm in a White-Collar organization. Gender & Society, 24(3), 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kelly, E. L., Moen, P., & Tranby, E. (2011). Changing workplaces to reduce work-family conflict: Schedule control in a White-Collar organization. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Livingston, R. W., Shelby, R. A., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23, 346–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  44. Martin, A. E., Phillips, K. W., & Sasaki, S. J. (2016). Reducing bias through blindness or awareness: Divergent effects of race and gender ideologies (Working Paper). Columbia: Columbia Business School.Google Scholar
  45. Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., Fan, W., Lee, S. R., Almeida, D., Kossek, E. E., et al. (2016). Does a flexibility/support organizational initiative improve high-tech employees’ well-being? evidence from the work, family, and health network. American Sociological Review, 81(1), 134–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pedulla, D. S. (2014). The positive consequences of negative stereotypes: Race, sexual orientation, and the job application process. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(1), 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pierce, J. L. (1996). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reskin, B. F. (2000). The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 29(2), 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reskin, B. F., & McBrier, D. B. (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations’ employment of male and female managers. American Sociological Review, 65(2), 210–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richardson, E. V., Phillips, K. W., Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2011). Double jeopardy or greater latitude: Do black women escape backlash for dominance displays? (Working Paper). Evanston: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  54. Ridgeway, C. L. (1993). Gender, status and the social psychology of expectations. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender, feminism on theory. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ridgeway, C. L., & Kricheli-Katz, T. (2013). Intersecting cultural beliefs in social relations: Gender, race, and class binds and freedoms. Gender & Society, 27(3), 294–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered effect of social class signals in an elite labor market. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1097–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rudman, L., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sellers, P. (2012). Fortune 500 women CEOs hits a milestone. Fortune. (
  62. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith-Lovin, L., & McPherson, M. (1993). You are who you know: A network approach to gender. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender, feminism on theory (pp. 223–251). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  64. Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7), 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thébaud, S., & Taylor, C. J. (2016). The ‘Women Always Fail’ thing: The specter of motherhood and its influence on the career aspirations of young scientists and engineers (Working Paper).Google Scholar
  66. Thomas, D. A., & Creary, S. J. (2009). Meeting the diversity challenge at PepsiCo: The Steve Reinemund Era. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474–480.Google Scholar
  68. Wilkins, C. L., Chan, J. F., & Kaiser, C. R. (2011). Racial stereotypes and interracial attraction: Phenotypic prototypicality and perceived attractiveness of Asians. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 427–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williams, C. L., Muller, C., & Kilanski, K. (2010). Gendered organizations in the new economy. Gender & Society, 26(4), 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wynn, A. T., & Correll, S. J. (2018). Puncturing the pipeline: Do technology companies alienate women in recruiting sessions? Social Studies of Science, 48(1), 149–164. Scholar
  71. Yoshino, K., & Smith, C. (2013). Uncovering talent: A new model of inclusion. Deloitte University Leadership Center for Inclusion.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations