gender discrimination research papers

cheap annotated bibliography editor service ca

Hit enter to search or ESC to close. Daft punk homework blogspot The debut album from Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo arrived inright around the proliferation. We can help with that too, crafting a course paper, a dissertation, etc.

Gender discrimination research papers scope in essay writing

Gender discrimination research papers

Another source of asymmetry may be that both men and women tend to form connection routes passing through a male node when reaching toward distant domains Aldrich, One could speculate that other factors might contribute, like friendship or perceived status, competency and reputation. These factors might, in turn, be partly depending on gender, e.

Multiple categories of relationships were analyzed, for instance, by Ibarra who reported that, in a company setting, men named mostly men as points of contact for five different business-relationship categories, whereas for women the preferred gender was category-dependent. A similar situation could be at work here: one could speculate that a set of other, hidden, variables influence reviewer appointment decisions, and that these variables have a different importance for male and female editors.

Determining which factors are most important for male and female editors in the choice of the reviewer and how these factors are or are not, in principle, related to gender, might thus aid in reducing homophily in the peer-review system. Now, while the active engagement of these femocrats is very useful in pushing forward technocratic i.

Indeed political experiences have shown that when an external event reduces the influence of these isolated driver women, the situation can quickly deteriorate again Outshoorn, , aggravated by the suspicious look toward femocrats held by formerly dominant men or, paradoxically, even women, finding them too prone to compromise or too aggressive Outshoorn and Kantola, Such strategies are required to protect the acquirements of top-down actions against gender discriminations: increasing the number of women will not be enough to overcome gender bias Isbell et al.

Ideally, all scientific interactions are gender-blind. A scientist's status and the provision of resources to scientists should not be influenced by gender but solely depend on the value of the scientific contributions. Accordingly, reviewers and editors, the gatekeepers of the scientific canon, should be particularly sensitive to base their judgment solely on the merit of scientific work.

This merit, however, is difficult to determine and any assessment is necessarily influenced by the assessor's view of the field, including his or her personal position in the network of colleagues and the interactions with them Mulkay, ; Cole, Inbreeding homophily, an increased affinity between persons with similar attributes, appears to be a sociological, population-level trait of human societies. It is only natural, thus, that we find gender homophily in interactions between editors, reviewers and authors.

Nonetheless, this inbreeding homophily is damaging to female scientists, whose work ends up being overlooked, due to unconscious negative bias. The phenomenon of inbreeding homophily is also likely not restricted to the peer review of manuscripts, so it needs to be taken into account for grant evaluation, hiring, or when designing mentoring programs.

Importantly, it is likely to persist even when numerical balance between genders is achieved Isbell et al. Altogether, inbreeding homophily negatively affects science as a whole because a stronger involvement of women would increase the quality of scientific output Merton, ; Woolley et al.

Consequently, all scientists should wholeheartedly support the endeavor to remove gender bias from science - but how could that be achieved? Initiatives to remove gender-based inequality can roughly be divided into two different categories. As inbreeding homophily is an expression of a state of mind it is likely little amenable to change by externally enforced measures.

Raising awareness, in comparison, seems to be the most promising route. Educative actions should be conducted with tact, not based uniquely on inducing feeling of guilt and shame, in order not to be perceived as annoying Woodward, At the same time, existing formal actions to reduce bias should be upheld. In the field of peer review two more specific strategies are available to reduce bias: blind review and automated editorial management.

However, both strategies are of limited acceptance and use. In an attempt to assist editors of Frontiers journals, keyword-based reviewer suggestions are automatically provided to them but the editors remain free to make their own choices. It could display statistics similar to our Figure 3 and encourage non-homophilic choices of reviewers. Such a strategy maintains full editorial freedom and could easily be evaluated, either internally or, in the case of open review as in the Frontiers journals, through analysis of the publicly available data.

Given how engrained homophily is in our nature, the path towards a gender-blind science will be arduous. Yet, with the joined effort of the scientific community to overcome partisanship and discrimination, a merit-based system with equal opportunities for all scientists might just be within reach. After all, which social enterprise would be more apt to follow ratio over instinct than science?

Subsequently, articles' metadata article id, authors, reviewers, editors, publication date, etc. All gathered personal identity information was deleted after inference of individual genders see later , resulting thus in a fully anonymized data set. The anonymized network data is provided as Supplementary file 3. To recognize and identify people re-occurring in more than one article, every person was assigned a unique identifier number UID.

In the remaining cases, we decided whether a record matched another based on the names and affiliations of people. In case both contributors' given names consisted of only initials, we required, in addition, that their affiliations were sufficiently similar. Newman found that name-matching in the absence of UIDs, and even abbreviating all given names to initials, resulted in errors on the order of few percent in a data set comprising more than a million people.

Correspondingly, as we expect the UIDs to be correctly associated with a contributor in the vast majority of cases, erroneously matching or not matching people is likely relatively uncommon. Each UID was assigned a gender based on their associated given names note that after the steps described in the previous section, at least one first name was fully specified for The extracted given names were compared with an extensive name list, assembled from public web-sources, such as:.

Note that some given names like Andrea are in use for both men and women. Gender-ambiguous given names present in the US census database were categorized to the gender to which they were more frequently attributed.

When a name appeared as both male and female in one of the other sources, or when different sources did not agree on the gender for a name, we decided not to associate that given name with a gender. We validated the gender assignment procedure by performing a web search for randomly selected people from our data set, and determining their gender based on a picture or the use of gender-specific pronouns in a biographical text.

Our list thus comprised female and male names. In addition to the name list, we manually assigned the non-automatically-identified gender of people with a high number of re-occurrences. We represented the available data in directed networks Figure 1a , in which vertices were individual scientists and edges denoted peer-reviewing interactions: is appointing in the editor-to-reviewer network, and is editing reviewing a manuscript of in the editor reviewer -to-author network.

Year-resolved graphs were constructed by deleting all links representing articles that were published later than the given year. All graph analyses Figure 1—figure supplement 1 were performed with the freely-available Python igraph package. In graph theory, a connected component is a subgraph in which any two vertices are connected to each other by at least one path, and which is connected to no additional vertices in the full graph. The largest of all the connected components of a graph is called its giant component.

One can distinguish between the weak giant component in which the direction of edges is ignored when building inter-node paths and the strong giant component in which the direction is taken into account. All the following graph analyses have been performed on the weak giant component of the networks observed at each time.

Transitivity undirected clustering coefficient is calculated as the ratio of triangles to connected triangles triplets in the graph, considering connections between nodes independent of their direction. Average path length calculates the mean of the geodesic directed path lengths between all pairs of nodes in a connected component. The geodesic path length between a given pair of nodes is the minimum number of links needed to travel between the nodes along connected edges.

Statistical significance was established by comparing a feature of the data to its confidence interval CI. Confidence intervals were calculated by recalculating the given feature times, after permuting gender labels with the exception of Figure 3 e where, for computational reasons, only recalculations were performed.

Specifically, Figures 1 and 2 are derived from a table with a column given the number of contributions up to a specified time point in a given role for each person, and another column of each person's gender, and the latter column was permuted keeping the former constant. On the other hand, confidence intervals in Figure 3 were obtained by repeatedly permuting genders among all nodes in a given graph, independent of their associated roles.

The underlying graph used for Figure 3a and Figure 3c-f was a suitably pruned editor-to-reviewer graph, out of which: we first removed all self-loops i. Similarly, Figure 3b was derived from a deleafed reviewer-to-author graph. Figure 3d shows two histograms, one over all male editor nodes, the other over all female editor nodes.

For each editor i who appointed at least 2 distinct reviewers we calculated a measure H i of inbreeding homophily. To compute it, we first measured the actual number of reviewer assignments given to women nodes by the considered editor i , W i.

The next step was to subtract the expected number of reviewer assignments given to women, which would be observed if the given editor node appointed women with the average frequency p i they are appointed in its local vicinity. To evaluate p i we took the set of all editors both males and females at a distance of at most 5 directed edges from the considered editor node i.

We counted the overall number A all of reviewer assignments made by these editors i. We used a similar technique to assess the impact of the most homophilic editors on the overall network-homophily in the female editor-to-reviewer and male editor-to-reviewer networks. Let q i be the probability a person of the same gender is chosen by an editor i , where q i is calculated exactly as p i in the previous paragraph, i.

Next, let k i denote the number of assignments editor i gives to a person of the same gender and n i the total number of assignments editor i makes. In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

Thank you for submitting your article "Gender bias in scholarly peer review" to eLife for consideration as a Feature Article. The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission. This is an interesting and high quality manuscript on a topic that is important and timely.

The manuscript which is based on a novel data set merits publication after revision to improve readability and replicability. See below for more details. It would be interesting to compare the population studied by the authors with other large-scale studies to enhance the generalizeability of their findings.

For example, it seems as if the authors could compare Figure 1—figure supplement 2 to Lariviere et al. Also, there are several studies that show that women are less productive than men. This might be useful for explaining Figure 2. For example, the authors mention that the names are publicly disclosed this is what allows this analysis.

However, several studies have shown that open peer review significantly affects the willingness of certain populations to conduct reviews e. Could the fact that names are disclosed make this less generalizable? The limitations of this should be discussed. However, women might be more likely to say no to requests to reviews for various reasons e. Hence, might their underrepresentation stem from self-selection rather than discrimination?

Specifically, editors might on average be older than reviewers, who in turn might on average be older than authors although with large variability. Is it possible that higher gender discrepancy among editors and reviewers is because women might be less represented in older age groups? More information should be provided on this. The authors state that they cannot guarantee a "completely error-free parsing" — could they run a validation test to give an estimate of the error?

And was any validation exercise conducted on the name-gender algorithm? How does this compare with other name-gender algorithms? Furthermore, the article fails to engage with the previous literature in a substantial way. Given that this work is one of the largest peer-review studies to-date, it would be useful for the authors to establish how their work refutes or confirms previous work. At present, some of the most interesting results are buried in the figure captions.

It would be great to see the authors embed some of these results, in more detail, in the main text. How concerned should we be about them in the first place? But if the goal is to increase gender parity, shouldn't women editors be 'allowed' to be more homophilic, at least until the parity achieved? Might it be better to suggest that all editors should try to recruit more women reviewers?

We thank the reviewer for the reminder. We have included the anonymized raw data in the revised submission. We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. Specifically, we find that gender composition of Frontiers articles authors is similar to that of Lariviere et al. We also included a comparison with 1 a large data set for the gender composition of editors in mathematical journals Topaz and Sen, and 2 a recent study Lerback and Hansen, with data from 20 journals of the American Geophysical Union.

We find that, overall, our study provides a global account on the prevalence of women among editors and reviewers and ranks these previous reports in a continuum of field-specific participation numbers. While our data does not allow inferring the reasons for why women contribute less, some studies indeed suggested that women are less productive. However, for completeness, we also refer to other partially conflicting studies indicating that women may have different, not necessarily lower productivity patterns than men e.

Gilbert et al. Furthermore, we stress that the key new findings of our study concern homophily Figure 3 and that the smaller number of women has been taken into account in the analysis leading to these findings. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We agree that open peer review could potentially have effects other than the intended increase in transparency and quality. Despite extensive search we could not find any study that specifically assesses whether open peer review affects the gender specific acceptance rate of reviewer assignments.

Should we have missed a crucial publication, we would be very grateful for a reference. We also now systematically compare our findings to a large number of previous studies which considered smaller sample-sizes but had access to more meta-data, since they were initiated journal-side. The reviewer is correct in suggesting that it is critical to distinguish between self-selection and discrimination. Besides this discussion, we also performed a more detailed analysis of the different prevalence of homophily in the male and female subpopulation.

Taken together we feel that the data clearly point to same-gender preference of mostly male editors as a contribution to the under-representation of female scientists across the Frontiers series of journals. This conclusion is particularly strengthened by our new analysis of the different patterns of gender homophily for male and female editors Figure 3e -f.

However, as the number of female scientists decreases with age and rank, the differences seen in the gender fraction of editors, reviewers and authors could well be influenced by the age distribution in these populations. While errors are in principle unavoidable when identifying people based on their names, Newman estimated their rate to be only few percent.

Combined with our reliance on user IDs for the vast majority of people, we expect that errors due to name disambiguation are uncommon. Independent of the error rate, we would like to stress that mis-assigning gender can never increase the homophily that we see.

Random mis-assignments have the same effect as a small rate of random permutation of gender labels. It is true that our previous version had the style of a short letter, rather than that of an extended article. We now rewrote and substantially extended the Discussion section of the manuscript, including generous paragraphs of comparison with other empirical work, the current state of the art and detailed discussions about why our study can clarify previously ambiguous pictures.

Despite these comprehensive additions and expanded reference section 99 references cited, while in the previous version we had just 31 we have failed to include the crucial references the reviewer had in mind; we would be keen to receive more explicit guidance. Every figure in our article clearly indicates comparison with confidence intervals associated to a null hypothesis of no bias effects besides numerical differences between male and female populations. Therefore, our figures already showed the requested information.

Indeed, our statistical assessment — random shuffling of gender labels — leaves the network structure and the fraction of females at every level intact. In essence, we ask whether the observed contributions could have occurred randomly, if all actors of different gender behaved identically with respect to the contribution in question.

We apologize if this important procedural aspect was not clear enough. We have now better highlighted the concept of the shuffling method cf. Figure 1A for the generation of gender-blind control networks, and edited the third paragraph of the Results section third paragraph in an attempt to make it more understandable.

Furthermore, we have also improved figure captions. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Former Figure S3, now Figure 1C , as well as former Figure S5, now Figure 3D are now presented in more detail in the Results section, second and sixth paragraphs, respectively.

We also better highlighted the homophily findings, which are a key novel contribution of our study. In particular, we have added a completely new section and figure panel about the observed different mechanisms of homophily for male and female editors Figure 3E and 3F in the main manuscript. We further rewrote and substantially extended the Discussion section of the manuscript to now include a discussion of these findings.

We agree with the reviewer that it is important to discern statistical significance, effect size, and relevance. First, while the differences, for the most part, seem small, they can reach up to a factor of 2 between the observed fraction of females with 10 contributions and the chance range. Given the large range in the number of occurrences, visualized in Figure 2 , we had to use a logarithmic scale.

This requires care when attempting to judge the magnitude of the bias just from the visual inspection of those graphs, while statistics are precise. Second, to highlight why our findings are concerning, we now include several sections in the revised Discussion that:. B List direct results of subtler forms of gender bias. The reviewer is asking an interesting question and we agree: on first glance, it might seem like a prudent policy to support homophily among female editors to reach equity.

In response to question 1, we would like to highlight, however, that the goal of scientific policy is not equity per se, but equal opportunity and scientific meritocracy. To this end homophily should be reduced, too, as homophily, even in a situation when parity is reached, prevents equal opportunity. In response to question 2, encouraging editors of both genders to recruit more women might foster the advance of excellent female scientists and advertise that women do good science.

We stress however that a broad literature corpus in sociology of work environments have shown that the efficacy of top-down measures aiming at enforcing equal representation is poor if not paired with policies aiming at educating deciders about the importance of fighting gender discrimination i. Considering both sides of the medal, it is unclear whether the positive effects faster route to equity or negative effects undesirable behavioral trait prevail in the long run.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication. This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.

The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref , Scopus , PubMed Central. The research community needs to do more to support scientists from underrepresented groups. Research culture needs to be improved for the benefit of science and scientists. Cited Views 16, Annotations Open annotations. The current annotation count on this page is being calculated.

Cite this article as: eLife ;6:e doi: Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all. Download asset Open asset. Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all. Figure 3. Women-Owned Businesses. Berger, J. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.

Berger and M. Bernardin, H. Bianchi, S. Maternal employment and time with children: dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography 47, — Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Forces 79, — Biernat, M.

The language of performance evaluations: gender-based shifts in content and consistency of judgment. Aggression among university employees. Blau, F. New evidence on gender differences in promotion rates: an empirical analysis of a sample of new hires.

Bobocel, R. Justice-based opposition to social policies: is it genuine? Boldry, J. Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Issues 57, — Borrel, C. Perceived sexism as a health determinant in Spain. Womens Health 19, — Branscombe, N.

Brass, D. Budig, M. Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: who rides the glass escalator? Burke, R. Organizational values, job experiences and satisfactions among managerial and professional women and men: advantage men? Women Manag. Cable, D. Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Case, K. Raising male privilege awareness and reducing sexism: an evaluation of diversity courses. Women Q. Cassirer, N. Work Occup. Castilla, E.

The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Ceci, S. Chemers, M. An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Chugh, D. Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: why milliseconds matter. Justice Res. Chung-Yan, G. A critical re-examination and analysis of cognitive ability tests using the Thorndike model of fairness. Cikara, M. Jost, A. Kay, and H. Cleveland, J. Cohen, P. Working for the woman? Female managers and the gender wage gap.

Cohen-Charash, Y. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Correll, S. Cortina, L. Incivility in the federal courts. Law Soc. Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. Cox, T. Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness.

Executive 5, 45— Career paths and career success in the early career stages of male and female MBAs. Crocker, D. Crosby, F. The denial of personal discrimination. Cognitive biases in the perception of discrimination: the importance of format. Sex Roles 14, — Cuddy, A.

Issues 60, — Dardenne, B. Davison, H. Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: a meta-analytic investigation. From sex to gender: a university intervention to reduce sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador. Issues 70, — De Pater, I. Gender differences in job challenge: a matter of task allocation. Work Organ. Durden, G. More on the cost of being other than white and male. Eagly, A. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis.

Ellemers, N. The underrepresentation of women in science: differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? Elsass, P. Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the experiences of women and people of color. Elsbach, K. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Fine, S. Firth, M. Sex discrimination in job opportunities for women.

Sex Roles 8, — Fiske, A. Confusing one person with another: what errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Fiske, S. A model of often mixed stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Dis respecting versus dis liking: status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth.

Issues 55, — Fitzgerald, L. Measuring sexual harassment: theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic Appl. Keita and J. PubMed Abstract Google Scholar. The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Ford, T. Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. Fuegen, K. Mothers and fathers in the workplace: how gender and parental status influence judgements of job-related competence.

Galinsky, E. Gelfand, M. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Gerhart, B. Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates. Gilbert v. Glass, J. Blessing or curse? Glick, P. The two faces of Adam: ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality.

Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across culture. Goldberg, P. Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction 5, — Goldenhar, L. Stressors and adverse outcomes for female construction workers. Good, J. When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: the costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles 62, — Grandey, A. The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain.

Grant, R. Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Seventh Edition. New York, NY: Wiley. Greenhaus, J. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Gutek, B. Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Hagen, R. Discrimination against competent women. Hakim, C. Women, careers, and work-life preferences. Hartnell, C. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, and M. Hebl, M. Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles.

Heilman, M. Staw and L. Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: effects of performance information ambiguity. Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Motherhood: a potential source of bias in employment decisions. Hicks-Clarke, D. Climate for diversity and its effects on career and organisational attitudes and perceptions. Hitlan, R. Antecedents of gender harassment: an analysis of person and situation factors.

Sex Roles 61, — Holland, J. Exploring careers with a typology: what we have learned and some new directions. Hough, L. Determinants, detection, and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: issues, evidence, and lessons learned. House, R. The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Huffman, M.

When more is less: sex composition, organizations, and earnings in U. Hulin, C. Hunter, J. Hunter, L. Labor Relat. Ittner, C. Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard. James, E. Diversity crises: how firms manage discrimination lawsuits. Jayne, M. Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: research findings and recommendations for organizations. Jung, D. Kanter, R. Men and Women of the Corporation. Kath, L. Cross-level, three-way interactions among work-group climate, gender, and frequency of harassment on morale and withdrawal outcomes of sexual harassment.

Kawakami, K. The impact of salient self-identities on relative deprivation and action intentions. Kay, A. Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes to system justification. Kelly, E. King, E. Benevolent sexism at work: gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Klandermans, B. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.

Kohn, M. Job conditions and personality: a longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects. Konrad, A. Asymmetrical demography effects on psychological climate for gender diversity: differential effects of leader gender and work unit gender composition among Swedish doctors. Formalized HRM structures: coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices?

Kozlowski, S. Integration of climate and leadership: examination of a neglected issue. Kristof-Brown, A. Kulik, C. Konrad, P. Prasad, and J. Lamont, M. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things: responses to stigmatization in comparative perspective. Racial Stud. Lazear, E. Male-female wage differentials in job ladders.

Labor Econ. Leskinen, E. Gender harassment: broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law Hum. Levitin, T. Sex discrimination against the American working woman. Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. Oxford: Harpers. Linehan, M. The development of female global managers: the role of mentoring and networking. Ethics 83, 29— Lips, H. Issues Public Policy 3, 87— Lyness, K. Above the glass ceiling?

A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Major, B. From social inequality to personal entitlement: the role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Jost and B. Major Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , — Manne, A. People Place 9, 6— Mansfield, P. The job climate for women in traditionally male blue-collar occupations.

Sex Roles 25, 63— Marini, M. Sex differences in earnings in the United States. Martell, R. Sex bias at work: the effects of attentional and memory demands on performance ratings of men and women. Male-female differences: a computer simulation. Martins, L. Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: the role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs.

Masser, B. Reinforcing the glass ceiling: the consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles 51, — Maume, D. Glass ceilings and glass escalators: occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions.

McDonald, P. Reporting sexual harassment: claims and remedies. Asia Pac. McDonald, S. Networks of Opportunity: gender, race, and job leads. McGinley, A. Babes and beefcake: exclusive hiring arrangements and sexy dress codes. Duke J. Law Policy 14, — McIntyre, S. Preferential treatment in preselection decisions according to sex and race. McLaughlin, H. Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. Miner-Rubino, K. Mitchell, D. A laboratory analogue for the study of peer sexual harassment.

Sex Roles 66, — Moore v. Alabama State University. Alabama: United States District Court. Morgan, W. A field experiment: reducing interpersonal discrimination toward pregnant job applicants. Morrison, A. Women and minorities in management. Moss-Racusin, C. PNAS , — Murphy, K. Murrell, A. Sexual harassment and gender discrimination: a longitudinal study of women managers.

Issues 51, — Neumark, D. Sex discrimination in restaurant hiring: an audit study. Nishii, L. Noe, R. Women and mentoring: a review and research agenda. Offermann, L. When leaders harass: the impact of target perceptions of organizational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes.

Olian, J. The impact of applicant gender compared to qualifications on hiring recommendations: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Ostroff, C. Does whom you work with matter? Schmitt and S. The moderating effect of tenure in person—environment fit: a field study in educational organizations. Perlow, L. Group Organ. Perry, E. Explaining gender-based selection decisions: a synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. Peterson, T. Separate and unequal: occupation-establishment sex segregation and gender wage gap.

Pryor, J. The psychosocial impact of sexual harassment on women in the US Military. A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Issues 51, 69— Ragins, B. Pink triangles: antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Gender and power in organizations: a longitudinal perspective. Reilly, K. Does more mean less? Reskin, B. Why not ascription? Roberson, L. When group identities matter: bias in performance appraisal.

Rosen, B. Roth, P. A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. Rudman, L. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Status incongruity and backlash effects: defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders.

Ruggiero, K. Coping with discrimination: how disadvantaged group members perceive the discrimination that confronts them. Russell, B. Tolerance of sexual harassment: an examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles 50, — Rynes, S. A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success of diversity training.

Salvaggio, A. Ambivalent sexism and applicant evaluations: effects on ambiguous applicants. Sanchez, J. A second look at the relationship between rating and behavioral accuracy in performance appraisal. Schein, E. Organizational Culture and Leadership , Vol. Schmader, T. An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance.

Schmitt, M. The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review. Schneider, B. Organizational climates: an essay. Cameron and D. The people make the place. Schneider, K. Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: empirical evidence from two organizations. Schneyer, K. Hooting: public and popular discourse about sex discrimination. Law Reform 31, — Schwartz, M. Aggregation bias and woman abuse: variations by male peer support, region, language, and school type.

Violence 15, — CrossRef Full Text. Sheltzer, J. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Smith, P. Retranslation of expectations: an approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Snyder, K. Revisiting the glass escalator: the case of gender segregation in a female dominated occupation. Son Hing, L. Responses to stigmatization: the moderating roles of primary and secondary appraisals. Du Bois Rev. Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: making concessions in the face of discrimination.

The merit of meritocracy. A two-dimensional model that employs explicit and implicit attitudes to characterize prejudice. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, and V. Spencer, S. Spreitzer, G. Early identification of international executive potential. Stangor, C. Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features.

Ask, answer, and announce: three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination. Steinpreis, R. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: a national empirical study. Sex Roles 41, — Stone, P. Stroh, L. Swidler, A.

Culture in action: symbols and strategies. Thomas-Hunt, M. When what you know is not enough: expertise and gender dynamics in task groups. Tosi, H. The effects of the type and amount of information in sex discrimination research: a meta-analysis. Triana, M. Valuing diversity: a group-value approach to understanding the importance of organizational efforts to support diversity.

Managing diversity: how organizational efforts to support diversity moderate the effects of perceived racial discrimination on affective commitment. Trice, H. The Cultures of Work Organizations. Tsui, A. Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads.

Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States: Washington, DC. Government Accountability Office. Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a qualitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Velez, et al. Vescio, T. Power and the creation of patronizing environments: the stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains.

Vorauer, J. Is this about you or me? Self-versus other-directed judgments and feelings in response to intergroup interaction. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Welle, B. Steiner, S. Gilliland, and D. Westall, R. Williams, C. Williams, J. Beyond the glass ceiling: the maternal wall as a barrier to gender equality.

Jefferson L. Willness, C. A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Word, C. The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Wright, P.

Consider, that how to write deaf ladies out opinion obvious

SKILLS AND EDUCATION RESUME

Repeatedly drawing random genders for the scientists in the network generated a surrogate ensemble that we used to estimate the expected number of contributions in a gender-blind control network. Author and reviewing contributions by women lay significantly below the confidence intervals obtained through this permutation testing procedure since and , respectively.

For female editing contributions we found the same, though non-significant, trend. Thus, the mere overall smaller number of female actors cannot explain the observed unbalanced fractions of female contributions to the peer-review chain. We then looked for possible differences over the entire distributions of the number of peer-review tasks and authoring contributions for men and women.

These distributions are fat-tailed Figure 2a-c , indicating that some individuals provided a large number of contributions to the publication chain, while a majority of scientists authored, reviewed or edited only a small number of manuscripts. Moreover, comparing the observed degree distributions to the expectations derived from the same null hypothesis used above, women had a significantly smaller than chance probability to review and author more than one article, while their probability to act as single-time reviewer or author exceeded the expected chance level Figure 2e-f.

In the editing role, women underrepresentation was significant only for a high number of contributions. Furthermore, we found significant deviations from chance-level expectations across the entire studied time-span Figure 2—figure supplement 1. A break-down of the number of individuals contributing a given number of times as editors, reviewers and authors binned, x-axis is marking the bin edges shows that the majority of scientists a edited, b reviewed or c authored corresponding zooms for small contribution numbers are shown in e-f only a small number of manuscripts.

Chance levels shaded were derived from an ensemble of reference networks constructed as shown in Figure 1a. The underrepresentation of women in relation to these chance levels tends to increase towards the fat tail of the distribution, associated to the relatively few individuals that made many contributions. In the group of one-time authors or reviewers however, women are overrepresented.

Time resolved distributions are shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 1. The differences in assignment numbers may reflect behavioral or psychological differences between the groups of male and female scientists — either intrinsic or due to sociocultural context Moss-Racusin et al. To reveal whether any bias exists in the reviewer assignment relation, we first analyzed gender correlations between directly connected pairs of nodes in the editor-to-reviewer appointment network Figure 3a and found a marked gender homophily bias for both male and female editor nodes.

Similarly, in the reviewer-to-author network Figure 3b , male female reviewers assessed articles authored by male female authors significantly more often than expected. At the same time, male editors green appoint less women than expected. The development of this trend over time is shown, including articles cumulatively until the indicated year. We here report four example disciplinary groupings, with large numbers of contributions from left to right, respectively, , , , and the propensity of appointing a female reviewer depending on the editor's gender for each of these groupings.

Only assignments by female neuroscience editors were not homophilic, otherwise the occurrence of same-gender preferences was general, arguing against heterogeneity between subfields as a cause for homophily in assignments. For male editors green the distribution is skewed towards an underrepresentation of female assignments left-leaning , while for female editors the distribution is skewed towards an overrepresentation of female assignments.

This highlights that homophily bias is detectable even at the level of the reachable narrow surrounding of each editor. We first checked for the influence of local subnetwork structure on apparent gender bias by looking at different scientific fields, including those with relatively mild underrepresentation of women, and found homophily widespread across disciplines Figure 3c.

Second, a more detailed analysis of inter-node gender correlations in the editor-to-reviewer appointment network detected a clear tendency to gender homophily already at the level of the narrow neighborhood of individual nodes Figure 3d. Specifically, to control for baseline homophily at the level of a narrow local neighborhood, we measured, for each editor node, the actual number of reviewer assignments given to women.

We then subtracted from this number its chance expectation, derived individually for every node from the frequency of locally reachable female reviewers, i. Even at this local neighborhood level, we continued to find that male female editors generally appointed female reviewers at a lower higher rate than expected.

Finally, we wondered whether the observed inbreeding homophily in the network was due to the presence of a few strongly homophilic editors or whether, alternatively, homophilic attachment was a feature shared by most editors. To that end, we defined an index of inbreeding homophily at the local level of each editor node. For each considered editor node, we first evaluated the number k of connected same-gender reviewers.

These different distributions of inbreeding homophilic tendencies resulted in a gender-dependent impact of the reviewer-appointment choices of male and female editors in determining the overall number of female reviewer appointments. After pruning the most homophilic male or female editors, we evaluated the new resulting probabilities of appointing a female reviewer.

On the other hand, the probability for a male editor to appoint a female reviewer increased only very slowly by pruning more and more male editors. This means that the overall smaller-than-chance probability of appointing female reviewers for male editors is due to inbreeding homophilic tendencies that are widespread among male editors , although at varying degrees of strength.

In addition, we found that women contribute to the system-relevant peer-reviewing chain even less than expected by their numerical underrepresentation, revealing novel and subtler forms of bias than numeric disproportion alone. We reported clear evidence for homophily beyond the expected baseline levels in both genders Figure 3 using a very large trans-disciplinary data set that allowed us to clarify a previously ambiguous picture Lloyd, ; Gilbert et al.

This network-level inbreeding homophily is driven by a large fraction of male editors, together with only a few highly homophilic female editors. To start our discussion on a positive note, we found that the participation of women in science, at least in terms of their numerical representation, has increased during the last years, which is consistent with other studies. The number of female doctoral recipients at US institutions increased by, on average, 0.

Ley and Hamilton reported that the number of fraction of women in medical schools increased by, on average, 0. Percentages of women professors has increased at a rate of 0. The fraction of publishing female scientists in Germany increased by, on average 0.

Fox et al. Caplar et al. In the Frontiers series of journals, we found that the number of contributions by female authors, reviewers and editors increased by, on average, 1. What could be the reasons for the remaining inequity? It has been argued that underrepresentation of women in science may be due to conscious career choices by female researchers Ceci et al. Previous studies reported that, measured by their number of publications, women are generally less productive than men Cole and Zuckerman, ; Zuckerman, ; Long and Fox, ; Xie and Shauman, ; Pan and Kalinaki, ; Caplar et al.

Nevertheless, women who persevere longer in their career despite obstacles are highly performing. Also, it has been reported that women with children are not less productive than those without Hamovitch and Morgenstern, ; Cole, ; Cole and Zuckerman, , although young children might decrease productivity Kyvik, ; Kyvik and Teigen, Moreover, declining an invitation to review is often due to a lack of time Tite and Schroter, and it is possible that female scientists spend more time with duties beyond research e.

On the other hand, a compensating factor seems to be that female editors, in contrast to authors, have been reported to be more productive than male editors Gilbert et al. Interestingly, men and women who are invited to review a manuscript have very similar propensities to accept the invitation Fox et al. The underrepresentation and discrimination of women in the scientific community is a problem that will not solve by itself, given the pervasive, generally unconscious nature of gender bias.

Women have been reported to be less likely to be hired Moss-Racusin et al. Still today, most people implicitly associate science with men, and liberal arts with women more than the other way round Nosek et al. Beyond that, men are more reluctant than women to believe that such a bias exists Handley et al. The data analyzed here comprises a wide spectrum of scientific topics and the findings should generalize.

However, Frontiers articles are unusual insofar as they undergo open peer review, whereas the identity of reviewers is not revealed in most other journals. Ambiguous reports exist whether open-peer review as opposed to single- or double-blind peer-review affects potential reviewers' willingness to assess a paper Nature Neuroscience, , van Rooyen et al.

While it is conceivable that assignment rejection due to non-anonymity is more likely for early career scientists, we do not see any reason for a direct effect of gender and such an effect has not been reported to the best of our knowledge. Then, how does the population of scientists contributing to the Frontiers series of journals compare to other scientometric populations? While no analysis of peer review is performed therein, this study comprises an order of magnitude more authors than in our study.

It can therefore serve as a benchmark for gender-composition among authors. Given uncertainties in determining a person's gender these numbers are comparable. However, small sample sizes, together with, possibly, a varying popularity of the Frontiers journals in different countries, might contribute to such deviations.

Second, not much data was available concerning gender bias among reviewers and editors, until very recently. Many previous studies cf. Supplementary file 2 were self-diagnoses performed by editorial boards of the corresponding journal and, as a consequence, tended to be based on mono-disciplinary data of relatively small sample size.

Larger sample sizes, but limited to editors, were considered in an analysis of the composition of editorial boards of mathematical journals Topaz and Sen, Supplementary file 2. Overall, our study provides thus a global account on the prevalence of women among editors and reviewers and ranks previous reports in a continuum of field-specific participation numbers. Importantly, our data is consistent with these diverse reports, highlighting that the Frontiers peer-review networks are well representative of widespread patterns.

Our work calls for a detailed comparison with another recently published report about peer reviewer assignments in 20 journals of the American Geophysical Union AGU , based on a slightly smaller sample size compared to ours Lerback and Hanson, Overall, relative fractions of female participation reported by this study are compatible with numbers we found for the journal Frontiers in Earth Science, with e. Figure 1c. For the AGU journals the authors conclude that editors, especially male ones, appoint too few female reviewers.

To account for such differences, we determined expectation levels by gender shuffling among the reviewers and editors in the fixed network of actual reviewer-editor interactions and find that the fraction of female authors the expectation value that Lerback and Hanson used is much higher than the expected number of female reviewer contributions our expectation value; cf. Figures 1b and 3a.

The phenomenon of gender homophily in peer-reviewing networks have already been described, but these previous reports have reached ambiguous conclusions. Lloyd found that female reviewers accepted female-authored papers at a higher rate than those of male authors, whereas male reviewers did not show such a bias. In contrast, Borsuk et al. However, our study concludes for the existence of significant inbreeding homophily in the reviewer appointing behavior for both male and female editors, and does so based on a pluri- rather than mono-disciplinary data set, substantially larger than all previous accounts of homophily in peer review.

Since the classic studies of Park and Burgess and Lazarsfeld and Merton , gender homophily has been found in groups of playing children Bott, ; Shrum et al. Since focused interactions between co-workers favor the formation of relations, operation in already homophilic environments will lead to an amplification of homophily Feld, ; Feld, In particular, homophilic styles of professional interaction with peers may persist since the time in which they were un- consciously learned in homophilic school environments Vinsonneau, Homophilic groups indeed tend to vote together when asked to decide for something Caldeira and Patterson, and have similar prospective evaluations, a same mindset Galaskiewicz, While homophily can in principle be put to good use, as for instance in the education about good health practices Centola, , the uncontrolled effects of homophily may constitute a threat to the universalism of the peer-review system, and thus to science.

We observed very different patterns of homophily for male and female editors, with a widespread homophily across men, while dominated by very few highly homophilic editors for women. After removal of their contribution, homophily became insignificant cf. Figure 3e,f. This suggests that there is only baseline homophily for the majority of female editors and most assignments are gender-blind for instance in the neuroscience community, cf. Figure 3c. For instance, in situations where a mutual friendship exists between A and B a friendship initiation with C tends to be reciprocated by boys, but not by girls Eder and Hallinan, Such differences in attachment strategies tend to generate gender-segregated worlds for children to preadolescents in which girls evolve in small homogeneous groups and boys form larger but more heterogeneous cliques, with boundaries made looser only later by romantic ties Shrum et al.

Another source of asymmetry may be that both men and women tend to form connection routes passing through a male node when reaching toward distant domains Aldrich, One could speculate that other factors might contribute, like friendship or perceived status, competency and reputation. These factors might, in turn, be partly depending on gender, e. Multiple categories of relationships were analyzed, for instance, by Ibarra who reported that, in a company setting, men named mostly men as points of contact for five different business-relationship categories, whereas for women the preferred gender was category-dependent.

A similar situation could be at work here: one could speculate that a set of other, hidden, variables influence reviewer appointment decisions, and that these variables have a different importance for male and female editors. Determining which factors are most important for male and female editors in the choice of the reviewer and how these factors are or are not, in principle, related to gender, might thus aid in reducing homophily in the peer-review system.

Now, while the active engagement of these femocrats is very useful in pushing forward technocratic i. Indeed political experiences have shown that when an external event reduces the influence of these isolated driver women, the situation can quickly deteriorate again Outshoorn, , aggravated by the suspicious look toward femocrats held by formerly dominant men or, paradoxically, even women, finding them too prone to compromise or too aggressive Outshoorn and Kantola, Such strategies are required to protect the acquirements of top-down actions against gender discriminations: increasing the number of women will not be enough to overcome gender bias Isbell et al.

Ideally, all scientific interactions are gender-blind. A scientist's status and the provision of resources to scientists should not be influenced by gender but solely depend on the value of the scientific contributions. Accordingly, reviewers and editors, the gatekeepers of the scientific canon, should be particularly sensitive to base their judgment solely on the merit of scientific work.

This merit, however, is difficult to determine and any assessment is necessarily influenced by the assessor's view of the field, including his or her personal position in the network of colleagues and the interactions with them Mulkay, ; Cole, Inbreeding homophily, an increased affinity between persons with similar attributes, appears to be a sociological, population-level trait of human societies.

It is only natural, thus, that we find gender homophily in interactions between editors, reviewers and authors. Nonetheless, this inbreeding homophily is damaging to female scientists, whose work ends up being overlooked, due to unconscious negative bias.

The phenomenon of inbreeding homophily is also likely not restricted to the peer review of manuscripts, so it needs to be taken into account for grant evaluation, hiring, or when designing mentoring programs. Importantly, it is likely to persist even when numerical balance between genders is achieved Isbell et al. Altogether, inbreeding homophily negatively affects science as a whole because a stronger involvement of women would increase the quality of scientific output Merton, ; Woolley et al.

Consequently, all scientists should wholeheartedly support the endeavor to remove gender bias from science - but how could that be achieved? Initiatives to remove gender-based inequality can roughly be divided into two different categories. As inbreeding homophily is an expression of a state of mind it is likely little amenable to change by externally enforced measures.

Raising awareness, in comparison, seems to be the most promising route. Educative actions should be conducted with tact, not based uniquely on inducing feeling of guilt and shame, in order not to be perceived as annoying Woodward, At the same time, existing formal actions to reduce bias should be upheld.

In the field of peer review two more specific strategies are available to reduce bias: blind review and automated editorial management. However, both strategies are of limited acceptance and use. In an attempt to assist editors of Frontiers journals, keyword-based reviewer suggestions are automatically provided to them but the editors remain free to make their own choices. It could display statistics similar to our Figure 3 and encourage non-homophilic choices of reviewers.

Such a strategy maintains full editorial freedom and could easily be evaluated, either internally or, in the case of open review as in the Frontiers journals, through analysis of the publicly available data. Given how engrained homophily is in our nature, the path towards a gender-blind science will be arduous.

Yet, with the joined effort of the scientific community to overcome partisanship and discrimination, a merit-based system with equal opportunities for all scientists might just be within reach. After all, which social enterprise would be more apt to follow ratio over instinct than science? Subsequently, articles' metadata article id, authors, reviewers, editors, publication date, etc. All gathered personal identity information was deleted after inference of individual genders see later , resulting thus in a fully anonymized data set.

The anonymized network data is provided as Supplementary file 3. To recognize and identify people re-occurring in more than one article, every person was assigned a unique identifier number UID. In the remaining cases, we decided whether a record matched another based on the names and affiliations of people.

In case both contributors' given names consisted of only initials, we required, in addition, that their affiliations were sufficiently similar. Newman found that name-matching in the absence of UIDs, and even abbreviating all given names to initials, resulted in errors on the order of few percent in a data set comprising more than a million people.

Correspondingly, as we expect the UIDs to be correctly associated with a contributor in the vast majority of cases, erroneously matching or not matching people is likely relatively uncommon. Each UID was assigned a gender based on their associated given names note that after the steps described in the previous section, at least one first name was fully specified for The extracted given names were compared with an extensive name list, assembled from public web-sources, such as:.

Note that some given names like Andrea are in use for both men and women. Gender-ambiguous given names present in the US census database were categorized to the gender to which they were more frequently attributed. When a name appeared as both male and female in one of the other sources, or when different sources did not agree on the gender for a name, we decided not to associate that given name with a gender.

We validated the gender assignment procedure by performing a web search for randomly selected people from our data set, and determining their gender based on a picture or the use of gender-specific pronouns in a biographical text. Our list thus comprised female and male names. In addition to the name list, we manually assigned the non-automatically-identified gender of people with a high number of re-occurrences.

We represented the available data in directed networks Figure 1a , in which vertices were individual scientists and edges denoted peer-reviewing interactions: is appointing in the editor-to-reviewer network, and is editing reviewing a manuscript of in the editor reviewer -to-author network. Year-resolved graphs were constructed by deleting all links representing articles that were published later than the given year. All graph analyses Figure 1—figure supplement 1 were performed with the freely-available Python igraph package.

In graph theory, a connected component is a subgraph in which any two vertices are connected to each other by at least one path, and which is connected to no additional vertices in the full graph. The largest of all the connected components of a graph is called its giant component. One can distinguish between the weak giant component in which the direction of edges is ignored when building inter-node paths and the strong giant component in which the direction is taken into account.

All the following graph analyses have been performed on the weak giant component of the networks observed at each time. Transitivity undirected clustering coefficient is calculated as the ratio of triangles to connected triangles triplets in the graph, considering connections between nodes independent of their direction.

Average path length calculates the mean of the geodesic directed path lengths between all pairs of nodes in a connected component. The geodesic path length between a given pair of nodes is the minimum number of links needed to travel between the nodes along connected edges.

Statistical significance was established by comparing a feature of the data to its confidence interval CI. Confidence intervals were calculated by recalculating the given feature times, after permuting gender labels with the exception of Figure 3 e where, for computational reasons, only recalculations were performed. Specifically, Figures 1 and 2 are derived from a table with a column given the number of contributions up to a specified time point in a given role for each person, and another column of each person's gender, and the latter column was permuted keeping the former constant.

On the other hand, confidence intervals in Figure 3 were obtained by repeatedly permuting genders among all nodes in a given graph, independent of their associated roles. The underlying graph used for Figure 3a and Figure 3c-f was a suitably pruned editor-to-reviewer graph, out of which: we first removed all self-loops i. Similarly, Figure 3b was derived from a deleafed reviewer-to-author graph.

Figure 3d shows two histograms, one over all male editor nodes, the other over all female editor nodes. For each editor i who appointed at least 2 distinct reviewers we calculated a measure H i of inbreeding homophily. To compute it, we first measured the actual number of reviewer assignments given to women nodes by the considered editor i , W i. The next step was to subtract the expected number of reviewer assignments given to women, which would be observed if the given editor node appointed women with the average frequency p i they are appointed in its local vicinity.

To evaluate p i we took the set of all editors both males and females at a distance of at most 5 directed edges from the considered editor node i. We counted the overall number A all of reviewer assignments made by these editors i. We used a similar technique to assess the impact of the most homophilic editors on the overall network-homophily in the female editor-to-reviewer and male editor-to-reviewer networks.

Let q i be the probability a person of the same gender is chosen by an editor i , where q i is calculated exactly as p i in the previous paragraph, i. Next, let k i denote the number of assignments editor i gives to a person of the same gender and n i the total number of assignments editor i makes. Therefore, discrimination in HR-related decision-making by organizational decision makers can contribute to women being paid less than men are.

Taken together, we have shown that there is discrimination against women in decision-making related to HR. In the next section, we review how biased HR practices are enacted, which can involve gender harassment. By HR enactment, we refer to those situations where current or prospective employees go through HR processes or when they receive news of their outcomes from organizational decision makers regarding HR-related issues.

Personal gender discrimination can occur when employees are given sexist messages, by organizational decision makers, related to HR enactment. More specifically, this type of personal gender discrimination is termed gender harassment, and consists of a range of verbal and non-verbal behaviors that convey sexist, insulting, or hostile attitudes about women Fitzgerald et al.

Gender harassment is the most common form of sex-based discrimination Fitzgerald et al. Crocker and Kalemba, ; McDonald et al. Thus, personal discrimination in the form of gender harassment is a common behavior; however, is it one that organizational decision makers engage in when enacting HR processes and outcomes? Although it might seem implausible that organizational decision makers would convey sexist sentiments to women when giving them the news of HR-related decisions, there have been high-profile examples from discrimination lawsuits where this has happened.

For example, in a class action lawsuit against Walmart, female workers claimed they were receiving fewer promotions than men despite superior qualifications and records of service. In that case, the district manager was accused of confiding to some of the women who were overlooked for promotions that they were passed over because he was not in favor of women being in upper management positions Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

In addition, audit studies, wherein matched men and women apply to real jobs, have revealed that alongside discrimination McIntyre et al. Finally, gender harassment toward women when HR policies are enacted can also take the form of offensive comments and denying women promotions due to pregnancy or the chance of pregnancy. For example, in Moore v. Alabama State University, , p. Thus, organizational decision makers will at times convey sexist sentiments to women when giving them the news of HR-related decisions.

Interestingly, whereas discrimination in HR policy and in HR-related decision-making is extremely difficult to detect Crosby et al. Indeed, there is a multitude of evidence that women and other stigmatized group members are loath to make attributions to discrimination Crosby, ; Vorauer and Kumhyr, ; Stangor et al. However, when organizational decision makers engage in gender harassment during HR enactment women should be more likely to interpret HR policy and HR-related decisions as discriminatory.

Now that we have specified the nature of institutional gender discrimination in HR policy and personal discrimination in HR-related decision-making and in HR enactment, we turn to the issue of understanding the causes of such discrimination: gender discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices, and personal biases of organizational decision makers.

The first contextual factor within which gender inequalities can be institutionalized is leadership. Leadership is a process wherein an individual e. Leaders are important as they affect the other organizational structures, processes, and practices. Specifically, leaders set culture, set policy, set strategy, and are role models for socialization. We suggest that one important way institutional gender inequality in leadership exists is when women are under-represented, compared with men—particularly when women are well-represented at lower levels within an organization.

An underrepresentation of women in leadership can be perpetuated easily because the gender of organizational leaders affects the degree to which there is gender discrimination, gender supportive policies, and a gender diversity supportive climate within an organization Ostroff et al. Organizational members are likely to perceive that the climate for women is positive when women hold key positions in the organization Konrad et al.

Specifically, the presence of women in key positions acts as a vivid symbol indicating that the organization supports gender diversity. Consistent with this, industries that have fewer female high status managers have a greater gender wage gap Cohen and Huffman, Further, women who work with a male supervisor perceive less organizational support, compared with those who work with a female supervisor Konrad et al.

In addition, women who work in departments that are headed by a man report experiencing more gender discrimination, compared with their counterparts in departments headed by women Konrad et al. The second contextual factor to consider is organizational structure.

The formal structure of an organization is how an organization arranges itself and it consists of employee hierarchies, departments, etc. Grant, An example of institutional discrimination in the formal structure of an organization are job ladders, which are typically segregated by gender Perry et al. Such gender-segregated job ladders typically exist within different departments of the organization. Women belonging to gender-segregated networks within organizations Brass, have less access to information about jobs, less status, and less upward mobility within the organization Ragins and Sundstrom, ; McDonald et al.

This is likely because in gender-segregated networks, women have less visibility and lack access to individuals with power Ragins and Sundstrom, In gender-segregated networks, it is also difficult for women to find female mentors because there is a lack of women in high-ranking positions Noe, ; Linehan and Scullion, Gender inequalities can be inherent in the structure of an organization when there are gender segregated departments, job ladders, and networks, which are intimately tied to gender discrimination in HR practices.

For instance, if HR policies are designed such that pay is determined based on comparisons between individuals only within a department e. The overrepresentation of women in certain jobs leads to the lower status of those jobs; consequently, the pay brackets for these jobs decrease over time as the number of women in these jobs increase e. Similarly, networks led by women are also devalued for pay.

For example, in a study of over 2, managers, after controlling for performance, the type of job, and the functional area e. Another contextual factor in our model is organizational strategy and how institutional discrimination within strategy is related to discrimination in HR practices. Strategy is a plan, method, or process by which an organization attempts to achieve its objectives, such as being profitable, maintaining and expanding its consumer base, marketing strategy, etc.

Strategy can influence the level of inequality within an organization Morrison and Von Glinow, ; Hunter et al. For example, Hooters, a restaurant chain, has a marketing strategy to sexually attract heterosexual males, which has led to discrimination in HR policy, decisions, and enactment because only young, good-looking women are considered qualified Schneyer, When faced with appearance-based discrimination lawsuits regarding their hiring policies, Hooters has responded by claiming that such appearance requirements are bona fide job qualifications given their marketing strategy for reviews, see Schneyer, ; Adamitis, Hooters is not alone, as many other establishments attempt to attract male cliental by requiring their female servers to meet a dress code involving a high level of grooming make-up, hair , a high heels requirement, and a revealing uniform McGinley, Thus, sexist HR policies and practices in which differential standards are applied to male and female employees can stem from a specific organizational strategy Westall, We now consider institutional gender bias within organizational culture and how it relates to discrimination in HR policies.

Organizational culture refers to collectively held beliefs, assumptions, and values held by organizational members Trice and Beyer, ; Schein, Cultures arise from the values of the founders of the organization and assumptions about the right way of doing things, which are learned from dealing with challenges over time Ostroff et al.

The founders and leaders of an organization are the most influential in forming, maintaining, and changing culture over time e. In other words, when people encounter a problem in their workplace, the organizational culture—who we are, how we act, what is right—will provide only a certain realm of behavioral responses.

For instance, in organizational cultures marked by greater gender inequality, women may have lower hopes and expectations for promotion, and when they are discriminated against, may be less likely to imagine that they can appeal their outcomes Kanter, ; Cassirer and Reskin, Furthermore, in organizational cultures marked by gender inequality, organizational decision makers should hold stronger descriptive and proscriptive gender stereotypes: they should more strongly believe that women have less ability to lead, less career commitment, and less emotional stability, compared with men Eagly et al.

We expand upon this point later. Other aspects of organizational culture that are less obviously related to gender can also lead to discrimination in HR practices. For instance, an organizational culture that emphasizes concerns with meritocracy, can lead organizational members to oppose HR efforts to increase gender equality.

This is because when people believe that outcomes ought to go only to those who are most deserving, it is easy for them to fall into the trap of believing that outcomes currently do go to those who are most deserving Son Hing et al. Therefore, people will believe that men deserve their elevated status and women deserve their subordinated status at work Castilla and Benard, Furthermore, the more people care about merit-based outcomes, the more they oppose affirmative action and diversity initiatives for women Bobocel et al.

Thus, a particular organizational culture can influence the level of discrimination against women in HR and prevent the adoption of HR policies that would mitigate gender discrimination. Finally, gender inequalities can be seen in organizational climates. Gender inequalities are most clearly reflected in two forms of climate: climates for diversity and climates for sexual harassment. A positive climate for diversity exists when organizational members perceive that diverse groups are included, empowered, and treated fairly.

Thus, in organizations with a less supportive diversity climate, women are more likely to leave the organization, which contributes to the underrepresentation of women in already male-dominated arenas Miner-Rubino and Cortina, A climate for sexual harassment involves perceptions that the organization is permissive of sexual harassment. In organizational climates that are permissive of harassment, victims are reluctant to come forward because they believe that their complaints will not be taken seriously Hulin et al.

Furthermore, men with a proclivity for harassment are more likely to act out these behaviors when permissive factors are present Pryor et al. Therefore, a permissive climate for sexual harassment can result in more harassing behaviors, which can lead women to disengage from their work and ultimately leave the organization Kath et al.

Organizational climates for diversity and for sexual harassment are inextricably linked to HR practices. Thus, HR policies, decision-making, and their enactment strongly affect gender inequalities in organizational climates and gender inequalities throughout an organization. In summary, gender inequalities can exist within organizational structures, processes, and practices.

However, organizational leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and climate do not inherently need to be sexist. It could be possible for these organizational structures, processes, and practices to promote gender equality. We return to this issue in the conclusion section. In this section, we explore how personal biases can affect personal discrimination in HR-related decisions and their enactment. Others have focused on how negative or hostile attitudes toward women predict discrimination in the workplace.

However, we extend this analysis by drawing on ambivalent sexism theory, which involves hostile sexism i. Gender stereotypes, that is, expectations of what women and men are like, and what they should be like, are one of the most powerful schemas activated when people encounter others Fiske et al. For example, men are preferred over women for masculine jobs and women are preferred over men for feminine jobs Davison and Burke, Furthermore, because women are associated with lower status, and men with higher status, women experience backlash for pursuing high status roles e.

In other words, agentic women who act competitively and confidently in a leadership role, are rated as more socially deficient, less likeable and less hireable, compared with men who act the same way Rudman, ; Rudman et al. Interestingly though, if women pursue roles in the workplace that are congruent with traditional gender expectations, they will elicit positive reactions Eagly and Karau, Thus, cultural, widely known, gender stereotypes can affect HR-related decisions.

However, such an account does not take into consideration individual differences among organizational decision makers e. Individual differences in various forms of sexism e. Ambivalent sexism theory builds on earlier theories of sexism by including attitudes toward women that, while sexist, are often experienced as positive in valence by perceivers and targets Glick and Fiske, Therefore, we draw on ambivalent sexism theory, which conceptualizes sexism as a multidimensional construct that encompasses both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward women Glick and Fiske, , Hostile sexism involves antipathy and negative stereotypes about women, such as beliefs that women are incompetent, overly emotional, and sexually manipulative.

Hostile sexism also involves beliefs that men should be more powerful than women and fears that women will try to take power from men Glick and Fiske, ; Cikara et al. In contrast, benevolent sexism involves overall positive views of women, as long as they occupy traditionally feminine roles.

Individuals with benevolently sexist beliefs characterize women as weak and needing protection, support, and adoration. Importantly, hostile and benevolent sexism tend to go hand-in-hand with a typical correlation of 0. This is because ambivalent sexists, people who are high in benevolent and hostile sexism, believe that women should occupy restricted domestic roles and that women are weaker than men are Glick and Fiske, An individual difference approach allows us to build on the earlier models Heilman, ; Eagly and Karau, ; Rudman et al.

Organizational decision makers who are higher vs. For instance, people high in hostile sexism have been found to evaluate candidates, who are believed to be women, more negatively and give lower employment recommendations for a management position, compared with matched candidates believed to be men Salvaggio et al. In another study, among participants who evaluated a female candidate for a managerial position, those higher in hostile sexism were less likely to recommend her for hire, compared with those lower in hostile sexism Masser and Abrams, Interestingly, among those evaluating a matched man for the same position, those higher vs.

According to ambivalent sexism theorists Glick et al. Furthermore, when enacting HR policies and decisions, organizational decision makers who are higher vs. Gender harassment can involve hostile terms of address, negative comments regarding women in management, sexist jokes, and sexist behavior Fitzgerald et al.

It has been found that people higher vs. Women also report experiencing more incivility i. In addition, organizational decision makers who are higher vs. Thus, organizational decision makers who are higher vs. Indeed, in studies of male MBA students those higher vs. Although there has been little research conducted that has looked at benevolent sexism and gender discrimination in HR-related decisions, the findings are consistent with our model. Finally, organizational decision makers who are higher vs.

Of greater relevance to the workplace, when role-playing a job candidate, women who interacted with a hiring manager scripted to make benevolently sexist statements became preoccupied with thoughts about their incompetence, and consequently performed worse in the interview, compared with those in a control condition Dardenne et al. In other words, the low expectations benevolent sexists have of women can be confirmed by women as they are undermined by paternalistic messages.

However, hostile and benevolent sexism operate in different ways. Interestingly, exposure to benevolent sexism results in worsened motivation and cognitive performance, compared with exposure to hostile sexism Dardenne et al. This is because women more easily recognize hostile sexism as a form of discrimination and inequality, compared with benevolent sexism, which can be more subtle in nature Dardenne et al. Thus, women can externalize hostile sexism and mobilize against it, but the subtle nature of benevolent sexism prevents these processes Kay et al.

Therefore, hostile and benevolent sexism lead to different but harmful forms of HR discrimination. Future research should more closely examine their potentially different consequences. Thus far, we have articulated how gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices can affect discrimination in HR policy and in HR-related decision-making and enactment. We now turn to an integration of these two phenomena.

Thus, when there are more gender inequalities within organizational structures, processes, and practices, organizational decision makers should have higher levels of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Two inter-related processes can account for this proposition: the establishment of who becomes and remains an organizational member, and the socialization of organizational members. First, as organizations develop over time, forces work to attract, select, and retain an increasingly homogenous set of employees in terms of their hostile and benevolent sexism Schneider, , People are attracted to and choose to work for organizations that have characteristics similar to their own, and organizations select individuals who are likely to fit with the organization.

Thus, more sexist individuals are more likely to be attracted to organizations with greater gender inequality in leadership, structure, strategy, culture, climate, and HR policy; and they will be seen as a better fit during recruitment and selection. Finally, individuals who do not fit with the organization tend to leave voluntarily through the process of attrition. Thus, less vs. The opposite should be true for organizations with high gender equality.

Through attraction, selection, and attrition processes it is likely that organizational members will become more sexist in a highly gender unequal organization and less sexist in a highly gender equal organization. These processes can also lead organizational decision makers to adopt less sexist attitudes in a workplace context marked by greater gender equality.

In addition, organizational decision makers can be socialized to act in discriminatory ways without personally becoming more sexist. If organizational decision makers witness others acting in a discriminatory manner with positive consequences, or acting in an egalitarian way with negative consequences, they can learn to become more discriminatory in their HR practices through observational learning Bandura, , So, organizational decision makers could engage in personal discrimination without being sexist if they perceive that the fair treatment of women in HR would encounter resistance given the broader organizational structures, processes, and practices promoting gender inequality.

Yet over time, given cognitive dissonance Festinger, , it is likely that discriminatory behavior could induce attitude change among organizational decision makers to become more sexist. Thus, it may appear that we have created a model that is closed and determinate in nature; however, this would be a misinterpretation. In the following section, we outline how organizations marked by gender inequalities can reduce discrimination against women.

The model we present for understanding gender discrimination in HR practices is complex. We believe that such complexity is necessary to accurately reflect the realities of organizational life. The model demonstrates that many sources of gender inequality are inter-related and have reciprocal effects. By implication, there are no simple or direct solutions to reduce gender discrimination in organizations. Rather, this complex problem requires multiple solutions.

In fact, as discussed by Gelfand et al. Therefore, we outline below how organizations can reduce gender discrimination by focusing on a HR policies i. Organizations can take steps to mitigate discrimination in HR policies. As a first example, let us consider how an organization can develop, within its HR systems, diversity initiatives aimed at changing the composition of the workforce that includes policies to recruit, retain, and develop employees from underrepresented groups Jayne and Dipboye, Diversity initiatives can operate like affirmative action programs in that organizations track and monitor a the number of qualified candidates from different groups e.

When the proportion of candidates from a group successfully selected varies significantly from their proportion in the qualified pool then action, such as targeted recruitment efforts, needs to be taken. Importantly, such efforts to increase diversity can be strengthened by other HR policies that reward managers, who select more diverse personnel, with bonuses Jayne and Dipboye, Organizations that incorporate diversity-based criteria into their performance and promotion policies and offer meaningful incentives to managers to identify and develop successful female candidates for promotion are more likely to succeed in retaining and promoting diverse talent Murphy and Cleveland, ; Cleveland et al.

Rather, to be successful, HR policies for diversity need to be supported by the other organizational structures, processes, and practices, such as strategy, leadership, and climate. For instance, diversity initiatives should be linked to strategies to create a business case for diversity Jayne and Dipboye, An organization with a strategy to market to more diverse populations can justify that a more diverse workforce can better serve potential clientele Jayne and Dipboye, Alternatively, an organization that is attempting to innovate and grow might justify a corporate strategy to increase diversity on the grounds that diverse groups have multiple perspectives on a problem with the potential to generate more novel, creative solutions van Knippenberg et al.

Furthermore, organizational leaders must convey strong support for the HR policies for them to be successful Rynes and Rosen, Finally, diversity programs are more likely to succeed in multicultural organizations with strong climates for diversity Elsass and Graves, ; Jayne and Dipboye, In organizations where employees perceive a strong climate for diversity, diversity programs result in greater employee attraction and retention among women and minorities, at all levels of the organization Cox and Blake, ; Martins and Parsons, Work-family conflict is a type of role conflict that workers experience when the demands e.

Work-family conflict has the negative consequences of increasing employee stress, illness-related absence, and desire to turnover Grandey and Cropanzano, Importantly, women are more adversely affected by work-family conflict than men Martins et al.

Work-family conflict can be exacerbated by HR policies that evaluate employees based on face time i. Formal family friendly HR policies can be adopted to relieve work-family conflict directly, which differentially assists women in the workplace. For instance, to reduce work-family conflict, organizations can implement HR policies such as flexible work arrangements, which involve flexible schedules, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, job-shares, and part-time work Galinsky et al.

In conjunction with other family friendly policies, such as the provision of childcare, elderly care, and paid maternity leave, organizations can work to reduce stress and improve the retention of working mothers Burke, Unfortunately, it has been found that the enactment of flexible work policies can still lead to discrimination. To circumvent this, organizations need to formalize HR policies relating to flexible work arrangements Kelly and Kalev, For instance, formal, written policies should articulate who can adopt flexible work arrangements e.

When the details of such policies are formally laid out, organizational decision makers have less latitude and therefore less opportunity for discrimination in granting access to these arrangements. To be successful, family friendly HR policies should be tied to other organizational structures, processes, and practices such as organizational strategy, leadership, culture, and climate.

A business case for flexible work arrangements can be made because they attract and retain top-talent, which includes women Baltes et al. Furthermore, organizational leaders must convey strong support for family friendly programs Jayne and Dipboye, Leaders can help bolster the acceptance of family friendly policies through successive interactions, communications, visibility, and role modeling with employees.

Family friendly HR policies must also be supported by simultaneously changing the underlying organizational culture that promotes face time. In summary, HR policies must be supported by other organizational structures, processes, and practices in order for these policies to be effective. Adopting HR diversity initiative policies and family friendly policies can reduce gender discrimination and reshape the other organizational structures, processes, and practices and increase gender equality in them.

Specifically, such policies, if successful, should increase the number of women in all departments and at all levels of an organization. Further, having more women in leadership positions signals to organizational members that the organization takes diversity seriously, affecting the diversity climate of the organization, and ultimately its culture Konrad et al. Thus, particular HR policies can reduce gender inequalities in all of the other organizational structures, processes, and practices.

A wealth of research demonstrates that an effective means of reducing personal bias by organizational decision makers in HR practices is to develop HR policies that standardize and objectify performance data e. To reduce discrimination in personnel decisions i. This ensures that expectations about characteristics of the ideal employee for that position are based on accurate knowledge of the job and not gender stereotypes about the job Welle and Heilman, To reduce discrimination in performance evaluations, HR policies should necessitate the use of reliable measures based on explicit objective performance expectations and apply these practices consistently across all worker evaluations Bernardin et al.

These evaluations should be done regularly, given that delays require retrieving memories of work performance and this process can be biased by gender stereotypes Sanchez and De La Torre, Finally, if greater gender differences are found on selection tests than on performance evaluations, then the use of such biased selection tests needs to be revisited Chung-Yan and Cronshaw, Importantly, the level of personal discrimination enacted by organizational decision makers can be reduced by formalizing HR policies, and by controlling the situations under which HR-related decisions are made.

We have articulated how HR-related decisions involve social cognition and are therefore susceptible to biases introduced by the use of gender stereotypes. This can occur unwittingly by those who perceive themselves to be unprejudiced but who are affected by stereotypes or negative automatic associations nonetheless Chugh, ; Son Hing et al. For instance, when HR policies do not rely on objective criteria, and the context for evaluation is ambiguous, organizational decision makers will draw on gender and other stereotypes to fill in the blanks when evaluating candidates Heilman, , Importantly, the context can be constructed in such a way as to reduce these biases.

For instance, organizational decision makers will make less biased judgments of others if they have more time available to evaluate others, are less cognitively busy Martell, , have higher quality of information available about candidates, and are accountable for justifying their ratings and decisions Kulik and Bainbridge, ; Roberson et al.

Thus, if they have the time, motivation, and opportunity to make well-informed, more accurate judgments, then discrimination in performance ratings can be reduced. Another means to reduce gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and enactment is to focus directly on reducing the hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs of organizational decision makers. Interventions aimed at reducing these beliefs typically involve diversity training, such as a seminar, course, or workshop.

Such training involves one or more sessions that involve interactive discussions, lectures, and practical assignments. During the training men and women are taught about sexism and how gender roles in society are socially constructed. Investigations have shown these workshop-based interventions are effective at reducing levels of hostile sexism but have inconsistent effects on benevolent sexism Case, ; de Lemus et al.

The subtle, and in some ways positive nature of benevolent sexism makes it difficult to confront and reduce using such interventions. However, levels of benevolent sexism are reduced when individuals are explicitly informed about the harmful implications of benevolent sexism Becker and Swim, Unfortunately, these interventions have not been tested in organizational settings. So their efficacy in the field is unknown. Gender inequality in organizations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in HR practices i.

We propose that gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and the enactment of HR practices stems from gender inequalities in broader organizational structures, processes, and practices, including HR policy but also leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and organizational climate. Moreover, reciprocal effects should occur, such that discriminatory HR practices can perpetuate gender inequalities in organizational leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and climate.

Organizational decision makers also play an important role in gender discrimination. While hostile sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to keep them from positions of power, benevolent sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to protect them. Thus, a focus on organizational structure, processes, and practices is critical. The model we have developed extends previous work by Gelfand et al. Gelfand et al. First, we differ from their work by emphasizing that workplace discrimination is most directly attributable to HR practices.

Consequently, we emphasize how inequalities in other organizational structures, processes, and practices affect institutional discrimination in HR policy. Second, our model differs from that of Gelfand et al. The attitudes of these decision makers toward specific groups of employees are critical.

However, the nature of prejudice differs depending on the target group Son Hing and Zanna, Therefore, we focus on one form of bias—sexism—in the workplace. Doing so, allows us to draw on more nuanced theories of prejudice, namely ambivalent sexism theory Glick and Fiske, Thus, third, our model differs from the work of Gelfand et al.

Fourth, we differ from Gelfand et al. However, the model we have developed is not meant to be exhaustive. There are multiple issues that we have not addressed but should be considered: what external factors feed into our model? What other links within the model might arise? What are the limits to its generalizability?

What consequences derive from our model? How can change occur given a model that is largely recursive in nature? We focus on these issues throughout our conclusion. In this paper, we have illustrated what we consider to be the dominant links in our model; however, additional links are possible. First, we do not lay out the factors that feed into our model, such as government regulations, the economy, their competitors, and societal culture.

In future work, one could analyze the broader context that organizations operate in, which influences its structures, processes, and practices, as well as its members. For instance, in societies marked by greater gender inequalities, the levels of hostile and benevolent sexism of organizational decision makers will be higher Glick et al.

Second, there is no link demonstrating how organizational decision makers who are more sexist have the capacity, even if they sit lower in the organizational hierarchy, to influence the amount of gender inequality in organizational structures, processes, and practices. The ability of people to act in line with their attitudes depends on the strength of the constraints in the social situation and the broader context Lewin, , Thus, if organizational structures, processes, and practices clearly communicate the importance of gender equality then the discriminatory behavior of sexist organizational decision makers should be constrained.

Accordingly, organizations should take steps to mitigate institutional discrimination by focusing on organizational structures, processes, and practices rather than focusing solely on reducing sexism in individual employees. In other words, lifestyle preferences could contribute to gender differences in the workplace. Gender imbalances e. For instance, research has uncovered that women with professional degrees leave the labor force at roughly three times the rate of men Baker, Our model is derived largely from research that has been conducted in male-dominated organizations; however, we speculate that it should hold for female-dominated organizations.

There is evidence that tokenism does not work against men in terms of their promotion potential in female-dominated environments. Rather, there is some evidence for a glass-escalator effect for men in female-dominated fields, such as nursing, and social work Williams, In addition, regardless of the gender composition of the workplace, men are advantaged, compared with women in terms of earnings and wage growth Budig, Finally, even in female-dominated professions, segregation along gender lines occurs in organizational structure Snyder and Green, Thus, the literature suggests that our model should hold for female-dominated environments.

Some might question if our model assumes that organizational decision makers enacting HR practices are men. It does not. There is evidence that decision makers who are women also discriminate against women e. Further, although men are higher in hostile sexism, compared with women Glick et al. More importantly, the effects of hostile and benevolent sexism are not moderated by participant gender Masser and Abrams, ; Salvaggio et al.

Thus, those who are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism respond in a more discriminatory manner, regardless of whether they are men or women. Thus, organizational decision makers, regardless of their sex, should discriminate more against women in HR practices when they are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism. In future work, the consequences of our model for women discriminated against in HR practices should be considered.

The negative ramifications of sexism and discrimination on women are well known: physical and psychological stress, worse physical health e. However, how might these processes differ depending on the proximal cause of the discrimination? In order for the potential stressor of stigmatization to lead to psychological and physical stress it must be seen as harmful and self-relevant Son Hing, Thus, if institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices are completely hidden then discrimination might not cause stress reactions associated with stigmatization because it may be too difficult for women to detect Crosby et al.

In contrast, women should be adversely affected by stigmatization in instances where gender discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices is more evident. For instance, greater perceptions of discrimination are associated with lower self-esteem in longitudinal studies Schmitt et al. We do not believe this to be true. One potential impetus for organizations to become more egalitarian may be some great shock such as sex-based discrimination lawsuits that the organization either faces directly or sees its competitors suffer.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Crop, et al. Discrimination lawsuits are time consuming and costly James and Wooten, , resulting in lower shares, lower public perceptions, higher absenteeism, and higher turnover Wright et al. Expensive lawsuits experienced either directly or indirectly should act as a big driver in the need for change. Furthermore, individual women can work to avoid stigmatization.

Women in the workplace are not simply passive targets of stereotyping processes. People belonging to stigmatized groups can engage in a variety of anti-stigmatization techniques, but their response options are constrained by the cultural repertoires available to them Lamont and Mizrachi, For instance, it might be unimaginable for a woman to file a complaint of sexual harassment if she knows that complaints are never taken seriously.

Individuals do negotiate stigmatization processes; however, this is more likely when stigmatization is perceived as illegitimate and when they have the resources to do so Major and Schmader, Thus, at an individual level, people engage in strategies to fight being discriminated against but these strategies are likely more constrained for those who are most stigmatized.

Finally, possibly the most efficacious way for organizational members men and women to challenge group-based inequality and to improve the status of women as a whole is to engage in collective action e. People are most likely to engage in collective action when they perceive group differences as underserved or illegitimate Wright, Such a sense of relative deprivation involves feelings of injustice and anger that prompt a desire for wide scale change van Zomeren et al.

Interestingly, people are more likely to experience relative deprivation when inequalities have begun to be lessened, and thus their legitimacy questioned Crosby, ; Kawakami and Dion, ; Stangor et al. Therefore, changes to mitigate gender inequalities within any organizational structure, policy, or practice could start a cascade of transformations leading to a more equal organization for men and women. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Son Hing. Abrams, K. Social construction, roving biologism, and reasonable women: a response to Professor Epstein. DePaul Law Rev. Google Scholar. Acker, J. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Adamitis, E. Appearance matters: a proposal to prohibit appearance discrimination in employment. Law Rev. Adler, N. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy White women.

Health Psychol. Baker, J. The influx of women into legal professions: an economic analysis. Labor Rev. Baltes, B. Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: a meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Banyard, V. Reducing sexual violence on campus: the role of student leaders as empowered bystanders.

Barling, J. Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Baxter, J. The glass ceiling hypothesis: a comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Beaton, A. Neosexism among male managers: is it a matter of numbers? Becker, J. Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism.

Yet another dark side of chivalry: benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Begany, J. Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Men Masc. Berdhal, J. The sexual harassment of uppity women. Berger, J. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers. Berger and M. Bernardin, H. Bianchi, S. Maternal employment and time with children: dramatic change or surprising continuity?

Demography 47, — Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Forces 79, — Biernat, M. The language of performance evaluations: gender-based shifts in content and consistency of judgment. Aggression among university employees.

Blau, F. New evidence on gender differences in promotion rates: an empirical analysis of a sample of new hires. Bobocel, R. Justice-based opposition to social policies: is it genuine? Boldry, J. Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Issues 57, — Borrel, C. Perceived sexism as a health determinant in Spain.

Womens Health 19, — Branscombe, N. Brass, D. Budig, M. Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: who rides the glass escalator? Burke, R. Organizational values, job experiences and satisfactions among managerial and professional women and men: advantage men? Women Manag. Cable, D. Socialization tactics and person-organization fit.

Case, K. Raising male privilege awareness and reducing sexism: an evaluation of diversity courses. Women Q. Cassirer, N. Work Occup. Castilla, E. The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Ceci, S. Chemers, M. An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Chugh, D. Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: why milliseconds matter.

Justice Res. Chung-Yan, G. A critical re-examination and analysis of cognitive ability tests using the Thorndike model of fairness. Cikara, M. Jost, A. Kay, and H. Cleveland, J. Cohen, P. Working for the woman? Female managers and the gender wage gap. Cohen-Charash, Y. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Correll, S. Cortina, L. Incivility in the federal courts.

Law Soc. Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. Cox, T. Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. Executive 5, 45— Career paths and career success in the early career stages of male and female MBAs.

Crocker, D. Crosby, F. The denial of personal discrimination. Cognitive biases in the perception of discrimination: the importance of format. Sex Roles 14, — Cuddy, A. Issues 60, — Dardenne, B. Davison, H. Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: a meta-analytic investigation. From sex to gender: a university intervention to reduce sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador.

Issues 70, — De Pater, I. Gender differences in job challenge: a matter of task allocation. Work Organ. Durden, G. More on the cost of being other than white and male. Eagly, A. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Ellemers, N.

The underrepresentation of women in science: differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? Elsass, P. Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the experiences of women and people of color. Elsbach, K.

Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Fine, S. Firth, M. Sex discrimination in job opportunities for women. Sex Roles 8, — Fiske, A. Confusing one person with another: what errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Fiske, S. A model of often mixed stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.

Dis respecting versus dis liking: status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Issues 55, — Fitzgerald, L. Measuring sexual harassment: theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic Appl.

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone.

Write me world literature speech Leaders are important as they affect the other organizational structures, processes, and practices. At the beginning of the survey, all participants were informed about the purpose of the questionnaire and the anonymisation of their data. Alabama State University,p. On the other hand, confidence intervals in Figure 3 were obtained by format guideline resume writing permuting genders among all nodes in a given graph, independent of their associated roles. Accordingly, organizations should take steps to mitigate institutional discrimination by focusing on organizational structures, processes, and practices rather than focusing solely on reducing sexism in individual employees.
Gender discrimination research papers 50
Catholic essay ministry theology What is a good sat essay score 2019
Hindi short essay Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: why milliseconds matter. S2 Fig. S9 Table. Comparison between responses from male participants that did not complete the survey excluded respondents and participants included in the analysis respondents that completed the survey. More importantly, the effects of hostile and benevolent sexism are not moderated by participant gender Masser and Abrams, ; Salvaggio et al. Hunter, J.
School writing sites 719
Resume builder org Utility meter reader cover letter
Gender discrimination research papers Sample sizes for each question, country and gender factory process worker resume sample detailed in S17 Table. Tsui, A. Peter Rodgers. Besides this discussion, we also performed a more detailed analysis of the different prevalence of homophily in the male and female subpopulation. Thus, if they have the time, motivation, and opportunity to make well-informed, more accurate judgments, then discrimination in performance ratings can be reduced. In other words, agentic women who act competitively and confidently in a leadership role, are rated as more socially deficient, less likeable and less hireable, compared with men who act the same way Rudman, ; Rudman et al.

Think, that essay modernism art valuable answer

The participants in the questionnaire were selected amidst the women workforce of Quantum Technology with special regard to its marketing department. Nonetheless, the focus of the research were women over 30 years of age that were head office employees. The end result comprised of 30 respondents that replied to 30 questions of a formerly designed questionnaire, having close-ended questions.

Still, the sampling method will be the snowball that can provide preferential result in different cases. Nevertheless, the limitations in front of the research were the scarce literature on this topic, the insufficient time for the accomplishment of the research as well as the fact that the majority of employees have not provided the data in a serious manner Kumar, In this article, I attempt to highlight similarities and In this article, I attempt to highlight similarities and differences to be considered in order to formulate adequate strategies to counteract persistent gender bias and inequality in the labour force.

Based on The Social Institutions and Gender Index SIGI , my findings suggest that it is not necessarily due to the absence of political courage that little progress can be seen, but due to synergistic effects of traditional gender roles with a lack of corporate compliance working against empowerment. Additionally, modern gender role aspirations have certainly emerged over time, but an attitudinal rollback permeates society as a matter of the global economic slowdown.

Employment interview satisfaction of applicants within the context of a developing country: the case of Turkey. First, an original measurement instrument was developed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. Next, data were collected from real applicants to obtain the final measurement instrument. Finally, the hypothesized relationships were tested using structural equation modelling. The two-dimensional applicant satisfaction scale is statistically meaningful, valid and reliable, whereas hypothesized relationships mostly lead to results parallel to theoretical expectations.

Since applicant interview satisfaction has not yet been formally conceptualized and operationalized by academicians, this research will reveal an opportunity for recruiters to obtain deeper understanding of applicant perceptions and also to improve their ability to attract candidates to their organizations. With the aim determining the extent of the workplace gender discrimination faced by female agricultural extension workers in a With the aim determining the extent of the workplace gender discrimination faced by female agricultural extension workers in a government organization in Southern Bangladesh this research adopted mixed method approach.

For quantitative data this research considered 76 randomly selected female extension workers from populations, while qualitative methods considered focus group discussion, informal interviews, and case studies.

The findings of the research reveal the fact that in almost all the aspects under the dimensions of promotion and financial incentives, decision making, job opportunity, job classification, sexual harassment and internalized oppression discrimination is widespread. Respondents perceived that workplace gender discrimination can contribute to frustration, loss in self-confidence, fragile relationship with higher authority and co-workers and diminish interest in work.

Regression analysis results show that aged employees face less discrimination while high self-confident employees face more discrimination. Factor analysis output confirms that modification of the proposed six dimensions model into three set factors can be used as an off-the-rack tool for gender discrimination assessment in the similar organizations.

According to the respondents change of attitude of male workers, proper policies safeguarding women rights, and consideration of women sensitivity is crucial for minimizing work place gender discrimination. The obstacles that lead to the under-representation of women in leadership and upper level management positions are commonly described in scholarly works and the media as glass ceilings Barreto et al.

The present study is concerned with critical evaluation of gender discrimination and glass ceiling effect A case study of Heriot-Watt University Dubai Campus and Manipal University Dubai. The purpose of the present study is to identify the variables which play a vital role in glass ceiling effect based on gender.

Occupational requirements, gender discrimination, French law. Affirmative actions or preferential treatment can be a solution to overcome the effects of social discrimination at work. Nowdays the main obstacle to set up is not the legal delimitation in the European Law but the interpretation of cases law that limit its application in employment contracts. This situation represents a loss in the struggle for equal opportunity and rights for female works.

In April , the University of Hong Kong with In April , the University of Hong Kong with great fanfare announced that it was one of the first universities indeed, then Vice-Chancellor and President Peter Mathieson even said the first university to sign up as a champion of the United Nations HeForShe initiative. This was intended to eradicate gender bias in tertiary institutions around the globe. One of Prof. He took great pride in the fact that he was championing gender equality, and attended and hosted numerous events celebrating this cause.

Let us therefore assess the progress that the University of Hong Kong has made in this area during the Mathieson years. One index is the number of women who are employed in tenure-track, professoriate assistant professor and above positions, as opposed to non-professoriate teaching and research positions. Another is the number of women admitted to research postgraduate MPhil and PhD programmes, which train them to become future academics. The situation is slightly less than encouraging. In , HKU had professoriate-level staff, of whom With International Women's Day coming up, some quick calculations on the rate of decline seem appropriate.

Last year, the number of women at professoriate staff level fell by If that rate of attrition continues, it will be fifteen years before there are no women in the professoriate meaning the level of Asst Prof and upwards. There is, however, a more optimistic scenario. If we start at , when both the absolute no of women in the professoriate and the ratio of women to men 2.

At that rate, it will be And there is a middle scenario. If we start in , when professoriate numbers were at their height and the proportion of women to men was The elimination of women from the HKU professoriate will then take 39 years. Let us leave it to others to calculate just how long it will take to exclude women entirely from MPhil and PhD programmes.

Many of them are in any case already accepting better and more lucrative offers from programmes overseas. Like raindrops crawling down a window, the question now is just how long. It does all seem rather like the figures on Global Warming--you know it's coming, you just don't know how bad and how quick it will be. The employer was accordingly vicariously liable to the employee for damages.

Harassment in the workplace is no longer and perhaps never was limited to sexual harassment. Female careers at stake: How to approach hindrances to gender equality in contemporary private organizations — a lesson from previous studies on public organizations. From obvious harassment situations to more subtle hidden discrimination, which include discrimination to having children and raising a family, recruitment and promotion, only to mention a few examples, recent studies have shown that From obvious harassment situations to more subtle hidden discrimination, which include discrimination to having children and raising a family, recruitment and promotion, only to mention a few examples, recent studies have shown that gender inequalities in public organizations happen for similar reasons as studies on such organizations have been presenting over the years, with no news on the reasons.

This work aims at casting light on the importance of asking the same questions Moss Kanter was posting in in private organizations, but 40 years later, to understand how the hindrances to gender equality in private organizations would be nowadays and what would be required to see an improvement to the next step in terms of equality.

Related Topics. Follow Following. Global South. Racial and ethnic discrimination. Women do not measure up to men in various aspects of employment particularly regarding income, the rate or frequency of employment and the range of occupation. Glass ceiling exists to prevent women from being discriminated upon Bell, McLaughlin and Sequeira Gender discrimination in the work place is a common phenomenon in the United States of America. Women find it difficult to secure employment as compared to men.

This is associated with the snaky behavior of women in the USA. There are existent laws that provide for protection against any discrimination in their workplace. This however has not prevented employees from facing various forms of harassment and discrimination in employment based gender. In the USA, sex discrimination rare its ugly face in various forms and the common form of gender discrimination id the exclusion of women from the labor market just because of the fact that they are women.

It involves the association of particular jobs as for men only of for women only or by application of the glass ceiling rule that defines how far women should go in the corporate or government ladder Dipboye and Colella The most widespread form of gender discrimination is sexual harassment.

This happens when an employer connects the job status of the employee to their sexual suggestion. This is totally contrary to laws of employment which prohibit the subjecting of women to sexually charged or hostile work place environment. The prohibition of gender discrimination under title VII was considered as relieve for all women and a new dawn of seeking inequality in the work place but still the practice is widespread.

It is estimated that in the USA, the female gender are still occupied with jobs that are deemed to be typically for women like secretaries, administration scale workers as well as sales clerks. Gender discrimination has been implemented by some multinational companies operating in the USA and which claim that they are protecting certain bilateral treaty provision that gives them leeway to employ staff of their own choice.

This might be a recipe for discrimination Mayer 1. In the USA women suffer from gender discrimination in a various work place spheres like hiring, promotion and salary. In terms of hiring, few women find employment as compared to the population of women who graduate from College.

With regards to promotion, women occupy lower positions. Women are not represented in the top hierarchy of various organizations and the problem is not due to the fact they are not adequately trained but because they are discriminated because of their gender. Salary wise, women often make little money that the one made by their male counterparts Isaacs 1. In the case of Saudi Arabia, their current policies and programs are geared towards the emancipation of women in the labor market.

Despite the efforts by the government to ameliorate the position of women in the spheres of employment, women are still the minority in the work place and it is estimated that they make approximately 15 percent of the population in the labor force. The marginalization of women in the work place is linked to the existing legislative, social, occupational and educational constraints that hinder the participation of Saudi women in the labor market. Gender based discrimination in Saudi Arabia is evident in the statistics of job population; men occupy approximately 85 percent of the labor force.

Women in Saudi Arabia account for the large group of the unemployed population. Saudi laws guarantee that a woman is entitled to work but the same laws specify the environment that women should apply their labor and this is considered a form of sex segregation where women are placed in certain positions that are considered feminine in nature and are less fit for men.

In the private sector for example, women have access to narrow range of jobs mainly in private business and banks AlMunajjed 4. Though Saudi Arabia has made significant progress in combating discrimination in the work place, the progress has never been even and specifically in areas like women in paid employment and their treatment of migrant workers. Women in the Saudi Arabia are experiencing difficulties in their entry into the labor force.

It is estimated that the rate of women participation the workforce in Saudi Arabia has been on the rise. Women are a minority in occupying jobs in the managerial positions and they experience restriction in their choice for labor market and employment. Women experience a lot of harassment in the work place and they also suffer from offensive comments. Violence, discrimination and segregation are some of the common practices that affect woman in Saudi Arabia and it is deeply rooted in the Muslim tradition and the rigid social stratification structure which insubordinates women and makes them to appear impure or inferior to men.

Gender discrimination has made it hard for Saudi women to secure employment, to secure better training or to get equal pay for their work done. There is also widespread discrimination against women in terms of hiring and recruitment. Various employers have refused to accommodate the needs of women that are occasioned by their gender but which conflict with work practice for example pregnancy International Labor Office 3.

Traditionally in Saudi Arabia, business and government sector are predominantly preserve of men and they were limitedly exposed to family oriented systems, in this regard, men differed from women based on their perceptions, the beliefs and the expectations of a typical Saudi Arabian work pace. Yes, gender discrimination and segregation is prevalent in Saudi Arabia but it is being slowly eliminated.

Pay gap: there is often widespread discrimination and bias in the distribution of bonus and performances which may be related to the salary, it has been established that women are paid lower salaries than their male counterparts for similar work done. This equality is reflected in their entire career life. Consequently, in the salary cadre women concentrate on lower jobs in their occupations.

Recruitment, conditions of services, retention and promotion: there is a lot of occupational segregation in terms of career development in Saudi Arabia and US. It has been established that men occupy two-third of the management, professional and senior jobs.

There is also a likelihood of men progressing up the career ladder faster than their female counterparts, which is a reflection of discrimination in the work place. Recruitment: gender discrimination is also evidenced in the recruitment and the selection process. In this circumstance, men dominate highly paying jobs while women are recruited to occupy the low paying jobs. In Saudi Arabia, informal recruitment and personal referral are the common modes of recruitment.

These informal methods of recruitment have the tendency of propagating women exclusion in certain job fields. Consequently, women are more likely to be asked questions which touch on their family background during the recruitment and this is considered an issue of gender discrimination. Progression in career paths: women are in most circumstances trapped in lower paying jobs.

Women can only be promoted to supervisory positions but their male counterparts have the likelihood of being promoted to managerial posts. Work place culture: there are several culture issues that form the basis of gender discrimination in the work place. Networking activities and sports only place focus on male dominated sports. These cultural issues may be stereotyping and sexist in form. This alienates women hence creating exclusionary feeling of undervaluing their participation and confidence.

The practice and culture of long working for long hours serves to discriminate against those employees who have tight family responsibility who, on several occasions are women Equality and Human Rights Commission 9. There are various theories that are used to account for gender discrimination in the work place. There are certain cases of discrimination bias which are encouraged by the structures and practices of an organization as well as the environment and the dynamics what individuals operate.

Gender discrimination can also be depicted in the established rules of success where men are promoted or employed based on their performance while ladies secure employment or promotion based on their appearance. There are various theories that seek to explain the prevalence of gender discrimination on the workplace.

These theories are the sex plus theory, rational bias theory and the disparate treatment theory. Sex plus theory is defined by the gender and the marital status of the employee. Gender discrimination can also be evidenced on the benefits provided by an employee to workers. Most employees fail to factor in the fact that female employees have special sex based disabilities and health care demands like bearing children and pregnancy.

This unique sex based features of women should be made so as to enable women to fully participate in the labor force and failure to address this needs can amount to discrimination Brayton 1. This theory holds that employers are directly accountable and are responsible for their organizational structures and the institutional practices that may enable the practice of discrimination bias in the work place. There are situations where women managers with similar qualifications and same training and experience as their male counterparts and in similar positions earn fewer wage.

Modern organizations are slowly embracing team work which leads to the increase in the number of individuals who are charged with the art of decision making. The increased use of team work to make decisions has heightened discrimination bias which affects the ability of women to develop or grow within the organization. It may be hard to imagine or understand how organizational structure or the practices of institutions or the dynamics of work place can lead to gender discrimination.

There is disparate treatment theory which occurs when individuals are treated differently due to their group or association to particular group. Examples of disparate treatment theory are: the unwillingness of employees to hire women due to their gender, the reluctance by the management of an organization to place women in career track positions, offering of small salary to an employee just because she is a woman and the asking of male like questions to female candidates during an interview.

Consequently, there is the traditional version of disparate treatment theory which defines discrimination in the work place as an individual and measurable practice. It explains work place discrimination as intentional. According to the theory, individuals are consciously motivated to practice discrimination; it argues that discrimination is product of decision by an individual with stereotypical belief towards particular group of individuals.

Disparate treatment theory explains discrimination by unraveling the mind and the decisions of the individual actor and what motivates him to discriminate. Various kinds of disparate treatment theory are: individual disparate treatment theory and systemic disparate treatment theory. It is important to comprehend disparate treatment theory in terms of dissimilarities as opposed to the conscious motives to discriminate for equity to be realized in the work place.

There is also disparate impact theory which describes discrimination in form of consequences and not the motive Green Another theory is that examines the prevalence of discrimination in the work place is the rational bias theory. Despite of numerous efforts to promote equality in the place of work, discrimination against certain groups still occurs, women have particularly bore the brunt of gender discrimination.

This results in women doing poorly than men in terms or economic strength, income and unemployment. This discrimination is reflected in their salaries where women earn less than men. This theory predicts discrimination may be influenced by situations or circumstances whereby a demonstration of bias may attract rewards or sanctions. According to the proponents of the theory, external pressure from the superiors can justify gender discrimination, it explains that there can be valid forms of discrimination which have basis in fact and which relies on particular stereotypes to arrive at a predictive accuracy Larwood, Szwajkowski and Rose 9.

This is the theory that captures all forms of gender based discrimination on account of pregnancy in the work place. The theory explains all forms of discrimination of pregnant women, it is considered out of law to terminate the contract of an employee due to pregnancy. This theory argues that any sexual behavior in the office by an employer should be accompanied by a proof that the discrimination was not only driven by gender but by additional characteristics.

This form of discrimination holds the employers accountable when it happens that they have discriminated against women, sex plus discrimination is clearer and it happens when an employer does not discriminate against all the females and it only deals with subset or a category like Married woman.

It also covers the discrimination of women based on their marital status. This theory is used to describe a situation where an employee is categorized by the employer based on sex and another physical characteristic Shetreet To overcome gender discrimination in the work place in Saudi Arabia, it is imperative for the government to introduce various reforms which will prepare women for competitive jobs.

This should include labor market reforms that will seek to promote gender equality as well as to create a favorable environment that can favor the participation of Saudi women in senior and managerial jobs which were traditionally preserved for men.