2
FORMAL AND INFORMAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINSTWOMEN AT WORKTHE ROLE OF GENDER STEREOTYPES

Brian Welle
Harvard University

Madeline E. Heilman
New York University

When asked to think about a hostile environment for women in the workplace, many of us would firstenvision overt instances of sexual harassment or blatant employment discrimination. These associations
are certainly not astonishing: even in an age in which these behaviors are denounced and in large part
illegal, such organizational misconduct seems almost commonplace. There have been many high-profile
allegations of discrimination leveled against organizations within the last several years (Morris, Bonamici& Neering, 2005). For example, Morgan Stanley’s investment banking business recently paid out $54 million to over 300 female employees who claim to have been denied pay and promotions equal to thosereceived by their male colleagues. Additionally, 1.6 million women who are currently, or were formerly,
employed at Wal-Mart are eligible to participate in what is poised to become the largest-ever civil rights
lawsuit: like the women of Morgan Stanley, they claim to have been victims of sex discrimination(Greenhouse, 2004). In fact, according to statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, there has been no systematic decline over the last 12 years in the number of discrimination
lawsuits filed, or the amount of monetary damages awarded to the plaintiffs of these suits (Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004).

WORKING PAPERSCENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Not all forms of workplace discrimination generate such attention, however. Current evidence suggeststhat gender discrimination is expressed in less visible ways as well. A series of recent studies revealed thatmany women in high-level positions in corporations and firms believe that social exclusion, not just overt
discrimination, is a barrier to women’s career advancement. Examples of this less visible bias include alack of mentoring, being ostracized from informal networks of communication, and an inhospitable corporate culture (Catalyst, 1996, 2001, 2001b, 2004). Further demonstrating the subtlety of these barriers,
they were not readily perceptible to everyone in the work environment: men were significantly less likely than women to believe that any of these factors hindered women’s advancement in their companies
and firms.

24

Indeed, research has shown that the ways that men and women are treated differently in the workplace
can be nearly imperceptible at the level of the individual and emerge only when aggregated across individuals. Crosby (1984), for example, demonstrated that by and large, women do not acknowledge the waysthat gender discrimination may have affected their own career experiences. They are more likely toassume personal responsibility for receiving fewer organizational resources than their male coworkers.
These same women, however, believe that gender discrimination exists in the workplace and affects theresources that other women receive.
It has been argued that gender discrimination is difficult to perceive because it accounts for a small portion of variance in organizational decision-making (e.g., Barret & Morris, 1993). But this does not meanthat discrimination does not have significant consequences for working women. Martell and colleagues
provide one example of how the most subtle bias can influence the distribution of men and women within an organization. A computer simulation showed that if men and women are equally qualified foradvancement, yet 5 percent of the variance in promotion decisions is due to a negative bias against
women candidates, then the proportion of women can decrease from over 50 percent of the workforce atlower levels to 29 percent seven hierarchical levels further up in the organization (Martell, Lane &Emrich, 1996). Thus, an imperceptible expression of bias at the unit level can have a notable effect on
top-level representation, perhaps explaining why we continue to see gross inequality between the sexes at
the highest levels: 493 of the Fortune 500 CEOs are men, as are 84 percent of the corporate officers ofthese companies (Catalyst, 2002). However, we see gender parity within lower levels, where womenaccount for just over 50 percent of employees occupying “managerial and professional specialty occupations” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003).

The continued expression of gender discrimination begs for redress within organizations, not only
because it may affect the optimal movement of talent between organizational ranks, but also because it
affects the quality of employees’ organizational experiences. The presence of gender discrimination
causes women to experience work environments as exclusive and difficult to navigate (Catalyst, 2001;
Mor Barak, Cherin & Berkman, 1998). Indeed, the pressure of operating within such a work environment exacts a toll from women employees beyond the discrimination that they may experience there,
engendering less-positive attitudes toward their jobs and less engagement in their work (e.g., Ensher,
Grant-Vallone & Donaldson, 2001).
Understanding the underlying dynamics of discrimination is necessary before organizations can takeeffective action to reduce it. In other words, we must educate the business community about the psychological processes that drive the attitudes, behaviors, and decisions that disparately affect men and womenat work. Interventions that target root causes of these behaviors will inevitably prove more effective thanthose that target more surface-level indicators of disparate treatment.
This paper explores the psychological dynamics that drive the expression of discrimination in theworkplace. We review research demonstrating that the unfavorable experiences of women in the workplace result from a basic social psychological process: stereotyping. Further, we propose that organizations, through their policies and practices, can moderate the extent to which these processes
influence actual behaviors.

Social psychologists have spent several decades uncovering the cognitive heuristics and perceptual biases that, despite their functional components, can lead to faulty conclusions about social events and theactors involved in them. These information-processing techniques take a variety of forms and ultimately
serve to reinforce and validate one’s view of the social world and the people operating within it (Fiske &Taylor, 1991). Within the workplace, views about how work is done, the characteristics required for success, and who ought to be doing the work are often at odds with views about what women are like andhow they should behave.
Gender stereotypes lie at the heart of many of our perceptions of the workplace and the people that operate within it. The constellation of traits and attributes that are thought to uniquely describe men andwomen are called descriptive stereotypes. These stereotypes are applied to individuals that one encountersin work settings, and become the basis for inferring their internal, stable characteristics. Thus, even insituations in which person A may have very little knowledge about person B, he or she will infer a set ofcharacteristics about B from the general category of man or woman to which person B belongs (Stangor,
1988). In contrast to descriptive stereotypes, prescriptive stereotypes refer to the set of attributes and characteristics that describe how men and women “should” be (Burgess & Borgida, 1999; Eagly, 1987;
Heilman, 2001; Terborg, 1977). Perceptions of people are therefore guided simultaneously by cognitive
representations of their category-based traits and attributes and their normative beliefs about what is
appropriate and inappropriate for them to do, given their gender categories.
There is a rich body of research, much of which will be reviewed in this paper, showing that both descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes can undermine objective decision-making within organizations. Becauseof the inability of stereotype-based processing to accurately accommodate employees’ true skills, attrib-

F O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K

T H E S O C I A L P S Y C H O L O G Y O F G E N D E R D I S C R I M I N AT I O N AT W O R K

25

utes, and motives, they create a self-sustaining system of disparate treatment of women and men
in the workplace. Understanding how stereotypes operate and how they guide, often inappropriately, key
organizational decisions, can help explain why we still see gender inequality in the workplace, andwhy many organizations continue to struggle to create a workplace that is equally inclusive of both men
and women.

Lack of fit between descriptive stereotypes of women and male gender-typed jobs

WORKING PAPERSCENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

There is a seemingly irreconcilable difference between perceptions of what it takes to succeed in many
work settings and the attributes that women are presumed to have. This discrepancy has been incorporated into a lack of fit model of gender discrimination (Heilman, 1983; 1995; 2001). On one side of
the model lie perceptions of work. Jobs become gender-typed by virtue of both the number of men andwomen who occupy them and the attributes deemed necessary for successful performance. Numericallyspeaking, one sex is more highly represented than the other in many organizational roles and occupational categories (Bielby & Baron, 1986). For example, there are more women than men who are nurses
and more men than women who are engineers (Lips, 2003). At the same time, successful performancein these jobs is viewed as requiring gendered traits, skills, and attributes. A successful manager, forexample, is described as having stereotypically masculine, or agentic, traits (Heilman, Block, Martell &Simon, 1989), while a successful nurse may be expected to exhibit more feminine, or communal, traits(e.g., Glick, Wilk & Perreault, 1995). It follows that male gender-typed jobs are those that are typicallymale-dominated and are perceived as requiring traditionally masculine characteristics, while female
gender-typed ones are primarily staffed by women and thought to require feminine attributes (Cejka &Eagly, 1999).

26

On the other side of the lack of fit model lie the descriptive stereotypes of women. Sex is a chronicallysalient category in our society; the attributes associated with male and female shape the way we view
employees’ skills and attributes. Men, more than women, are thought to harbor agentic traits, such as
being decisive and task-oriented. Women, more so than men, are thought to harbor communal attributes,
such as ,nurturance and relationship-orientation (Heilman, Martell & Simon, 1988). When the genderstereotypes of the individual fit with the gender-type of the job, they are thought to have what it takes toperform well. Equally as important, this congruence creates an expectation that the individual will succeed. But when there is a lack of fit, negative expectations result: the individual is thought to lack theessential skills and is therefore expected to be less effective.
The matching process works against women and in favor of men in employment settings that potentially have the most to offer. The jobs that confer the most power are—almost without exception—male gender-typed: those that are the most well-compensated and to which large numbers of both men andwomen aspire. Organizational leadership positions, for example, are not only overwhelmingly populated
by men (Catalyst, 2002), but the successful occupants of these positions are often described in classically masculine ways. Research has shown that the successful manager is consistently described as moresimilar to the way men are viewed than to the way women are viewed (Heilman, Block, Martell & Simon,
1989; Schein, 1973). This is not only a U.S. phenomenon: in extensions of her 1973 work, Schein demonstrated that around the globe, the role of manager is viewed as more closely aligned with the characteristics ascribed to men than women: this was the case in China, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom(see Schein, 2001). Because of the perceived lack of fit between what women are like and the traits
presumed to be necessary for success at many of the most prestigious jobs and occupations, women are
viewed less favorably than their male colleagues. Stereotypes thus preclude the accurate assessment of
men’s and women’s capabilities to do the job (Martell, Parker, Emrich & Crawford, 1998). This sets thestage for bias in selection, placement, and performance evaluation. Thus, as will be described in later sections of this paper, these
expectations provide the fuel for the disparate treatment of men
and women in the workplace.

“Prescriptive stereotypes therefore prohibit women frombeing tough, aggressive andLack of fit between the prescriptive stereotypes of women andthe successful employee

dominant. The violation of

Successfully performing at male gender-typed jobs thus presents a conundrum for women employees:
demonstrating the characteristics presumed to lead to effective performance means violating prescriptive
norms for how they ought to behave. There is therefore a lack of fit between the prescriptive stereotypes
of women and the characteristics associated with employees who are successful at male gender-typed
activities. This lack of fit has been described in Eagly’s role incongruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
According to the theory, men’s social roles—the culturally shared set of beliefs and expectations of how
men should be—overlap with the domain of organizational leadership, but women’s roles do not. Like
the violation of any social norm, women’s transgression of prescriptive norms by succeeding at male gender-typed work inspires negative reactions, largely in the form of social disapproval. A recent study byHeilman and colleagues demonstrated that women who succeeded at a male gender-typed job are penalized through negative evaluations of their personal traits. While they were seen as having the agentic
qualities needed for successful performance, they were described as being downright interpersonally hostile: abrasive, pushy, manipulative, and generally unlikeable. In contrast, successful men and women who
did not violate prescriptive stereotypes were rated as significantly more interpersonally pleasant(Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs & Tamkins, 2004).
Follow-up research confirms that these negative ratings are the result of violating prescriptive stereotypes.
In their first study, Heilman & Okimoto (2005) replicated the earlier research by showing thatsuccessful women in male gender-typed jobs were rated as interpersonally unpleasant. In a second study,
subjects rated a successful woman manager who was either explicitly described as communal (i.e., caring,sensitive and understanding) or about whom no communal information was provided. Women managers
were rated as far more likeable when they were explicitly described as communal. This demonstrates thatwomen can be perceived both as likeable and as competent, but they have to prove that they embody thetraits that are part of their prescriptive stereotypes. Without such proof, they are assumed to be interpersonally deficient.

F O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K

Despite descriptive stereotypes of women as ill-suited for “men’s
these prescriptions leads towork,” sometimes they are undeniably competent and successful
disapproval, often taking
at male gender-typed jobs. Even then, there are problems for
women that are driven by gender stereotypes. In this case, it is prethe form of social penalties.”
scriptive stereotypes of women that are the driving force. Not only
are there stereotypes about what women are like, but also about
how they should behave (Burgess & Borgida, 1999; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001; Rudman &Glick, 2001). These prescriptive stereotypes function as norms for acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Their content overlaps with that of descriptive gender stereotypes: that is, people not only believethat women are more communal than men (i.e., the descriptive stereotype), but that they should behave
in nurturing, sympathetic ways, and show high concern for others. There are also prescriptions for what
women should not do—namely, to act in an agentic, or stereotypically male, manner. Prescriptive stereotypes therefore prohibit women from being tough, aggressive and dominant. The violation of these prescriptions leads to disapproval, often taking the form of social penalties.

27

S T E R E O T Y P E - D R I V E N D I S C R I M I N AT I O N
In the current review, we argue that descriptive and prescriptive stereotyping exert significant impact on
men’s and women’s organizational experiences. We focus here on the impact of stereotyping processes
on two types of discrimination, formal and informal. This distinction is one that has been promoted in
the burgeoning literature on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees (Welle& Button, 2004), but that holds promise for helping us to understand the experiences of other minority
and disenfranchised groups within organizations (e.g., Greenhaus, Parasuraman & Wormley, 1990). It isrelated to the language of the Title VII Civil Rights Act, which explicitly singles out overt discrimination—
the use of sex, race/ethnicity, national origin, and religion as criteria for decision-making—as being illegal (Bell, McLaughlin & Sequeria, 2002). For the purposes of this review, formal discrimination refers tothe biased allocation of organizational resources such as promotions, pay, and job responsibilities, while
informal discrimination centers on the interactions that occur between employees and the quality of relationships that they form (Hebl, Bigazzi, Mannix & Dovidio, 2002; Levine & Leonard, 1984).

Formal Discrimination

WORKING PAPERSCENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Descriptive stereotyping shapes the perceptions and expectations people form about men and women in
the workplace and provides the fuel for formal discrimination to occur. Adopting a stereotype-consistentview of women job applicants leads evaluators to conclude that they are less likely to have the skills necessary to succeed at male gender-typed jobs. Thus, research has demonstrated that even when the actual
qualifications of men and women are equivalent, men are viewed as having higher performance ability,
are expected to form better (Heilman, Martell & Simon, 1988), and are therefore favored over women in
the selection process for male gender-typed jobs (Davison & Burke, 2000; Gerdes & Garber 1983; Glick,
Zion & Nelson, 1988; Heilman, 1984). Similarly, Lyness & Judiesch (1999) collected data from a largeorganization and found that at higher levels within an organization, women received fewer promotions
than men.

28

Performance is likewise evaluated differently for men and women. Sackett and colleagues, in an analysisof actual performance evaluation data, showed that women were systematically rated as performing lesswell than men even after controlling for ability and experience, and that the gender discrepancy in evaluations was greater in male gender-typed jobs. That is, as the proportion of women in the work groupdecreased, evaluations of them were more negative relative to men (Sackett, DuBois & Noe, 1991). Other
research revealed that individuals who evidenced traditional stereotypes about women appraised
women’s true performance less accurately than those who did not express traditional stereotypes(Dobbins, Cardy & Truxillo, 1988). Given the link between performance evaluations and compensation,
it should come as no surprise that women are also underpaid relative to equally performing men (Durden& Gaynor, 1998; Lips, 2003; Marini, 1989; Roth, 2003). This was recently demonstrated in a study of over
4,000 managers representing hundreds of organizations (Ostroff & Atwater, 2003). Women managers
received significantly less compensation than did men even after controlling for a wide variety of humancapital factors. The wage gap was greater at higher organizational levels occupied predominantly by men,
supporting our view that gender discrimination is most likely to be expressed in male gender-typed
environments.
Violating prescriptive stereotypes by being successful at male gender-typed jobs can also lead todiscrimination against women in the allocation of formal organizational resources. A prime example ofthis inequality occurred in the case of Ann B. Hopkins, an employee of the consulting firm Price
Waterhouse, who by all objective measures was extremely successful. Ms. Hopkins was denied promo-

tion to partner despite her success, due largely to her interpersonal style. In violation of women’s prescriptive norms, her style was described as abrasive and aggressive. Although these traits may have in fact
contributed to her success, and the very same traits in her male colleagues were deemed acceptable, they
were used as the grounds to deny her promotion to partner at the firm (Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux& Heilman, 1991). Ms. Hopkins went on to file a lawsuit against her employer that was ultimately
considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided in her favor.
Since this seminal case, research evidence has emerged showing how and why prescriptive norm
violation leads to formal discrimination against women. In a systematic investigation, women who exhibited stereotypically masculine characteristics were less liked, and less likely to be considered for promotions or job opportunities, even though they were considered as competent as male employees (Heilman,
Wallen, Fuchs & Tamkin, 2004). Violating prescriptive norms has also been shown to be associated withmore negative evaluations of women leaders. When demonstrating a leadership style that is moreconsistent with masculine than with feminine characteristics, women are consistently evaluated to be lesseffective than men who use the same leadership style (Eagly, Makhijani & Klonsky, 1992).

Prescriptive stereotype violation can also inspire the withholding of job opportunities, and the willful sabotaging of women’s work. Rudman (1998) demonstrated in a series of laboratory studies that women who
presented themselves in a self-promotional manner were perceived to be more competent than those who
were self-effacing (a more stereotypically consistent presentation style), but were less likely to be hired by
the study participants. They were also more likely to have their opportunities sabotaged by those with control over their future opportunities (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004).

Informal Discrimination
Formal discrimination undoubtedly plays a role in limiting the career attainments of women employees,
particularly in regard to their access to key jobs, advancement opportunities, compensation, and the evaluation of their performance. But although it may be more difficult for women to gain access to male gender-typed jobs and to be promoted into leadership positions, some of them are successful at gaining entry.
Informal discrimination may confront them once they get there.
Descriptive stereotypes can indirectly contribute to informal discrimination: the negative expectations of
women’s abilities and skills may lead members of the organization to socially ostracize them, thereby
keeping women from becoming central players within their organizations. Because their input may bedeemed less valuable, they are more likely than men to be omitted from key discussions, overlooked
when perspectives are being sought about important decisions, and left out of informal networks thatprovide the context for critical information-sharing. Others in the workplace are less likely to cometo them for help precisely because they are viewed as lacking essential traits for success, thus creating asystem where women are cut off from opportunities to exert influence.

F O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K

Women who fail to exhibit the nurturing qualities associated with their gender prescriptions also face formal discrimination. A recent study showed that prescriptive stereotypes can create differential sets of
expectations for in-role and out-of-role job behaviors for men and women. Altruistic behaviors, for example, are seen to be less optional for women employees to perform than men. In contrast to men, altruism
on the part of women is viewed as fulfilling role expectations, not going above and beyond. Thus, in awork setting, men are given credit for performing altruistic behaviors—they are evaluated more positively
and recommended more favorable rewards—while women are penalized for not performing them
(Heilman & Chen, In Press).

29

Indeed, interaction patterns between many men and women in male gender-typed work environments
are of a substantively different quality from those that occur between and among male employees.
Research indicates that not only do women encounter more difficulty forming social connections at workthan men do, but they reap fewer benefits from the relationships that they do form. Analyses of social
networks reveal that men have more extensive social networks that include influential organizational
members than do women (Ibarra, 1992). Working women also report more difficulty establishing mentoring relationships with male colleagues than do men (Ragins & Cotton, 1991). Even when women do
find mentors and develop social networks, these relationships are less strongly associated with positive
career outcomes such as promotions and compensation than are men’s relationships (Eddleston,
Baldridge & Veiga, 2004; Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Lyness & Thompson, 2000).

WORKING PAPERSCENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Violating prescriptive stereotypes can also lead to informal discrimination against women. Those who
express traditionally masculine characteristics are liked less than stereotype-consistent women, and are
therefore more likely to be marginalized. The 2004 study by Heilman, et al. of successful women provides one example of this discrimination. In addition to being rated as interpersonally hostile, participants in these studies consistently expressed less liking for a successful woman in a male gender-typed
job than a woman perceived as less competent. She was also rated as less likeable than an equivalently
successful man. Given the negative assumptions about the successful woman’s personal characteristics,
it was not surprising that participants in these studies expressed less favorable attitudes about having her
as their manager than either a man or an unsuccessful woman.

30

A series of studies of women’s influence in task settings provides further evidence of the power of norm
violation to shape women’s work experiences. Carli (1990) found that women who spoke in counterstereotypic ways, that is assertively, were less able to exert influence over others than those who spoke tentatively. Later research demonstrated that differences in influence were largely determined by liking:
women who exhibited a dominant style were liked less than women with more normatively female styles,
even though they were thought to be more competent (Carli, LaFleur & Loeber, 1996). Disliked women
were less influential than women who were liked. This research program demonstrates the prescriptive
double-bind women face: to be viewed as competent they must be assertive and dominant, but exhibitingthese traits causes them to be disliked and less able to influence others.

Discrimination and the Work Environment for Women
The consequences of discrimination can extend beyond women’s lack of access to formal and informal
resources by influencing their experiences in, and perceptions of, their work environments. Many
women who believe they have experienced discrimination, or have seen colleagues affected by it, showless engagement in their work. A study of employees across jobs and industries by Ensher and colleagues
found that women and minority employees distinguished between three sources of discrimination:
supervisors, coworkers, and organizations. The more strongly participants believed that their supervisors
discriminated against them because of their gender or race, or that they had experienced organizationallevel discrimination (defined as the belief that organizational policies and practices were discriminatory),
the less satisfied they were with their jobs and the less committed they were to the organization.
Furthermore, women were less likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors when they reported experiencing coworker discrimination (Ensher, Grant-Vallone & Donaldson, 2001).
A study by Schaffer and colleagues (2000) showed that perceived gender-bias in organizational decisionmaking has negative effects across cultures. The more that women employees in the United States,
Beijing, and Hong Kong believed they had experienced gender discrimination, the less satisfied theyreported being with their jobs, the less affectively committed they were to their organizations, and thestronger was their intention to leave their jobs. Moreover, in both the United States and abroad, reportsof gender discrimination had an even more negative association with job attitudes and intentions than
did experiences with sexual harassment.

These studies demonstrate that discriminatory work environments can encourage the psychological disengagement of women from their work—they are less satisfied and committed when they believe that
they, or other women, have been the target of discrimination. The full impact of gender discrimination
is felt not only by women, however, but also by organizations that may be losing out on the skills womenbring into the workplace as they leave at higher rates than they would if discrimination were eliminated.
A recent survey of senior-level women in Fortune 1000 companies (vice-president level and above), forexample, shows that women who feel informally excluded from the culture of their organizations (e.g.,
excluded from informal networks of communication or report that their behavioral style is different fromthe organization’s norm) and feel that gender precludes their access to work opportunities are less satisfied with their jobs and intend to stay for a shorter length of time with their current employers than
women who report greater levels of inclusion (Welle, 2004). However, these women are not reporting adesire to leave the workforce altogether—their intended age of retirement was no different from those
who did not report being excluded from their organizational culture or work opportunities. We can conclude from this and related evidence that women who face discrimination are more likely to opt out of
their current organizations in order to find more hospitable working environments. It may even be thecase that the prevalence of discriminatory work environments motivates women to start their own businesses, which helps to explain why the number of women entrepreneurs is growing rapidly (Heilman &Chen, 2003).

O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L A C T I O N S T O I M P R O V E W O R K E N V I R O N M E N T S
FOR WOMEN
Many organizations are attending to their work environments, striving to understand the different experiences of their men and women employees and taking action to remedy these differences. There are several motivating factors, or business cases, that guide the development and implementation of what areoften termed “diversity programs.” The most obvious factor is a legal one: employment discrimination
based on sex has been illegal since the passage of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; organizations
must therefore ensure that their decisions are in compliance. Other motives move beyond the law andare grounded in the belief that having a gender-diverse workforce will improve business results throughthe addition of unique skills and perspectives (Thomas & Ely, 1996).

F O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K

Gender discrimination represents an organizational problem that looms larger than the effect it has onindividual women who personally feel discriminated against. Women’s perceptions that discrimination
occurs within their work environments, regardless of their own personal experiences with it, can leadthem to more negatively assess their organizations and organizational experiences than men do.
Research has shown that women in general report their organizations as being less inclusive and less fairthan do white men (Mor Barak, Cherin & Berkman, 1998). Moreover, while women are less likely to perceive themselves as victims of discriminatory treatment than they are to perceive that women as a groupface discrimination (Crosby, 1984), they are still affected by its occurrence. Gutek, Cohen & Tsui (1996)
found that the belief that women are disadvantaged relative to men within their organizations was associated with women’s lowered feelings of power and prestige and reported reluctance to make the same
career choices.

31

The goal of increasing diversity has thus become a salient one for organizations: a survey of Fortune 500
companies revealed that 75 percent of the responding organizations have a diversity program in place(Society for Human Resource Management, 1998). However, despite the shared interest in promoting
diversity, the actual content of these programs varies from one company to the next. Also, they are notalways well defined or linked to actual behaviors, objectives, and performance measurements. Less than
one-half of the programs were tied to employees’ performance evaluations or compensation. Similarly,
approximately one-half of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the diversity programs inmeeting their objectives was not measured.

WORKING PAPERSCENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

There is a potentially even bigger problem than the lack of rigor in defining and measuring the effectiveness of diversity programs. The stereotyping literature indicates that ambiguity in human resource
practices can create the conditions for gender stereotypes to flourish. This may especially be the casewhen the practices target particular members of demographic groups: not only does the program itself
call attention to demographic categories, but these categories can become, in the minds of observers, aplausible reason for why certain decisions are made. Heilman & Welle (2004) recently showed that highlighting diversity-related goals can ultimately lead to negative impressions of women’s work-related characteristics. In a series of studies, research participants were shown a photograph of a work group said tobe brought together to complete a male gender-typed task. They then reviewed background information
about two of the work group members and rated them on several dimensions. The rationale for assembling the group either reflected the organization’s diversity objectives (i.e, to ensure that the demographic diversity within the organization was represented), or ensured that the best resources and expertise
were represented. Results revealed that women associated with diversity objectives were rated in stereotype-consistent ways: they were viewed as less competent, less influential, and less likely to emerge as thegroup leader than women in the merit condition. In contrast, men were rated highly, regardless of therationale given for the makeup of the group. The findings indicate that the label of diversity can sometimes be interpreted as entailing preferential treatment of women and racial minorities, calling into question their skills and abilities relative to white men.

32

This research demonstrates that even well intended efforts to increase the access of women to opportunities may maintain—or even exacerbate—negative impressions of women’s abilities. We therefore argue
that the most effective strategies to reducing formal discrimination will be those that provide accurate andobjective information about organizational members, and then apply that information to decision-making processes. Following are recommendations to reduce discrimination and improve the work environment for women.
1. Base personnel decisions on accurate knowledge of the job
The lack of fit perspective of gender discrimination posits that gender bias occurs because women are
stereotyped as feminine and male gender-typed jobs are stereotyped as masculine. While we know thatstereotypes are not necessarily accurate descriptions of an individual’s attributes, to what extent do thestereotypes of a job accurately reflect what it truly takes to succeed? A thorough job analysis should
be conducted for male gender-typed jobs in order to (a) ensure that the characteristics presumed to benecessary for success are genuinely necessary, and (b) to ground the profile of the ideal job candidate
in behaviors, skills, and past experiences rather than in vague personality characteristics that can be
distorted to fit gender stereotypes.
We would like to emphasize here that we are suggesting that male gender-typed jobs be redefined basedon actual contributions to successful job performance. This focus is quite different from arguing that weshould re-conceptualize male gender-typed work as female gender-typed work. Rudman & Glick (1999)

investigated what happens when the job of manager is feminized, that is, defined as requiring the stereotypically feminine
traits of being helpful, being sensitive to the needs of others,
and listening carefully. Results show that discrimination against
women still occurred, but against agentic women, not gendertypical ones. Thus, it is important to form accurate impressionsof the job, just as it is necessary to accurately assess the individuals who work at it.
2. Use structured evaluation techniques“In the workplace, those whohave a personal stake inmaking accurate decisions
have a stronger incentive to
bypass their stereotyped
impressions than those who

To reduce ambiguity, all formal personnel decisions should be guided by a structured program to ensurethat men and women are being evaluated on the same criteria. There are at least two factors that are necessary for these programs to be effective. First, they must facilitate the accurate assessment of employees’ contributions. Test performance, number of projects completed, amount of revenue generated, andother quantifiable indicators are relatively easy to collect and judge, and they are also more difficult to distort in gender-consistent ways than more subjective measures. Other indicators of success may not be soeasily collected and analyzed, but formal evaluation tools that are grounded in an objective job analysis
can help ensure that women and men are evaluated along the same dimensions. The second
factor requires that explicit decision-making rules be defined. Since stereotypes can lead evaluators to
pay more attention to different types of information for men and women, a formula should be devised
to ensure that all information is used in the same way for men and women employees and job candidates. The formalization of information-collection and decision-making procedures should factor
into policies ranging from job interviews to performance evaluations. This method will help to ensurethat all individuals are being judged on the same criteria and leave little room for managers to improvise
or customize.

3. Hold managers accountable for making bias-free decisions
Stereotyping research shows that while gender may be a useful and readily accessible way to categorize
men and women in the work environment, people do not rely on it in every situation. Those who are
motivated to form accurate impressions will forego stereotypes in lieu of more accurate, individuating
information (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). So who is a “motivated” perceiver? In the workplace, those whohave a personal stake in making accurate decisions have a stronger incentive to bypass their stereotyped
impressions than those who will be personally unaffected by the decisions they make. Thus, a decisionmaker whose own outcomes are dependent on the person they select and evaluate will be motivated tomake decisions based on objective criteria. This effect was demonstrated in the studies conducted by
Rudman (1998). She found that self-promoting women (i.e., prescriptive norm violators) were less likely
to be hired unless the decision-makers actually had to work with the person selected and whose outcomes, therefore, were dependent on their partners’ performance. In this situation, self-promoting
women were more likely to be hired than self-effacing women. However, this interesting effect was onlyF O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K

Unfortunately, the criteria used to make important organizationwill be personally unaffected
al decisions are often unspecified. The assessment of employees’
contributions to the organization can be mired in ambiguity,
by the decisions they make.”
which makes accurate assessments difficult. These conditions
create the fuel for gender-based decision-making. In order toreduce this ambiguity, evaluators rely on their descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes when deciding
whom to hire or promote, or what an appropriate salary increase will be.

33

found for male subjects—women decision-makers were always more likely to hire a self-effacing woman,even when she was thought to be less competent.
It is not always the case that decision-makers in organizations can be outcome-dependent on those they
are evaluating, hiring and promoting. Hiring decisions are often made by individuals who are not
involved in a new employee’s work. Also, multi-rater evaluation systems, such as 360 degree feedback,allow several people to evaluate a single individual. Organizations can play a role in creating accountability when more natural outcome-dependency is lacking. Managers who are required to justify the decisions they make and describe the criteria they use to hire, evaluate, and distribute job opportunities
among individuals are less likely to discriminate against women. In other words, organizations thatenforce a transparent decision-making process will encourage manager accountability for the decisions
they make, thus reducing discrimination.
Research supports this recommendation. It has been shown that people show more complexity andgreater accuracy in personality assessments when they anticipate having to justify their ratings (Tetlock& Kim, 1987). Likewise, a laboratory study showed that individuals who have to justify their decisions aremuch less likely to favor members of their ingroup when allocating valued resources than those who do
not have to make justifications (Dobbs & Crano, 2001).
4. Create formal processes to build relationships

WORKING PAPERSCENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Reducing informal discrimination is a difficult task because it involves monitoring and regulating anorganic process: the formation of social relationships. Social networks develop between people who feel
comfortable with each other and who share common experiences, and the networks are not traditionallya byproduct of formal organizational policies. Organizations can institute formal networking and relationship-building activities, however, to help foster relationships in venues to which men and women
have equal access.

34

Organizations might also consider exerting control over one of the most important workplace relationships: mentorship. Mentoring relationships often develop informally between two people with the goalthat the more senior individual will give career guidance to the more junior one. But an increasing number of organizations are formally matching mentors in their organizations with protégés. Ragins and colleagues (Ragins, Cotton & Miller, 2000) conducted a survey of employees to assess their attitudes toward
their mentoring experiences. Employees who were protégés in informal mentoring relationships reported higher levels of satisfaction with their mentoring experiences than those in the formal programs, but
having a mentor, whether formally or informally assigned, was associated with more positive attitudes
than having no mentor at all. Thus, sacrificing the chemistry of an informal relationship can be balancedby having a well-trained mentor who is assigned through a formal program.
5. Create explicit links between diversity programs and performance
Because diversity programs may be presumed to advantage some employees over others, organizations
should take care to explicitly define their scope and content. Whether it is a mentoring program, diversity
training, or a recruitment strategy, care should be taken to implement the program fairly and consistently
for men and women. Communicating that these programs do not simply confer preferential treatment
to women over men and adhere to the principles of fairness will increase acceptance of both the programsand those who benefit from them (e.g., Heilman, Battle, Keller & Lee, 1998).

S U M M A RY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
The literature reviewed in this paper is a testament to the impact that gender has on the way we do ourwork, the quality and nature of the relationships we form, and the decisions we make. However, because
stereotyping is a process that occurs largely without conscious awareness, we are unlikely to notice theways that our attitudes are guiding our behaviors. And yet the effects of biased decision-making are plain
to see: discrimination against women in male gender-typed jobs is expressed formally through the biased
allocation of organizational resources and informally through the quality and nature of relationships thatform between members of the organization. It also fosters a work environment that is experienced morenegatively by women than men. A review of the existing literature indicates that perceived discrimination
is associated with women’s more negative evaluations of their work organizations, lowered commitment
to the organization, and an increased desire to leave.

This cycle is therefore one that perpetuates organizational systems that make success more difficult for
women to achieve than men. Indeed, negative performance expectations and norms around “acceptable”
feminine behavior interact to create a precarious situation for women motivated to succeed. Two of thestrategies that women cite as essential to achieving success within corporations and firms is “exceeding
performance expectations” and simultaneously “adopting a style with which male managers are comfortable” (Catalyst, 2001, 2004). But striking the perfect balance between disproving negative performance stereotypes and adhering to prescriptive norms is difficult, if not impossible, for most women.
Fortunately, gender discrimination is recognized as a problem by organizations, all of which are obligated by law to reduce it, and many of which believe that doing so will have a positive impact on the bottom
line of their businesses. There is still significant work that needs to be done to achieve the goal of a discrimination-free workplace. Current organizational practices vary widely from company to company andmost of them are not evaluated for their effectiveness. In this paper we provided recommendations for
applying stereotyping research to improve them.
Reducing gender discrimination will ultimately require that several simultaneous efforts be taken. First,
individuals must be educated about discrimination: what it is, how it happens, and how they can prevent
their own stereotypes from biasing their actions. Second, we must better understand the nature of jobs
and the skills required for success. Can one really achieve success at male gender-typed jobs only by displaying a small set of masculine characteristics? We suspect that diversity in styles and approaches canactually be good for productivity, as a small but growing literature is beginning to illustrate (vanKnippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). And finally, organizations must use the findings of gender-discrimination research to create better-structured programs to reduce ambiguity and encourage objective
decision-making.

F O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K

Cultural stereotypes about what women are like and how they should behave create the backdrop for acycle of disparate treatment. On the one hand, women are presumed to lack the attributes necessary forsuccessful task performance and are therefore more likely than men to be excluded from key work opportunities. But on the other, demonstrating that they are capable of successful performance prompts backlash that is expressed through both formal and informal discrimination, which can ultimately result inthe marginalization of gender-atypical women. The exclusion of these women from full engagement in
the workplace decreases their visibility, their capacity to act as role models, and precludes their ability tochange the stereotype of who women are and what they can achieve (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004).

35

These efforts may have some short-run disadvantages. For example, with education, employees will bebetter able to recognize instances of discrimination, which might result in lowered commitment and satisfaction and an increased number of lawsuits. Adopting an objective view of the characteristics required
for success at male gender-typed jobs, combined with more accurate assessments of abilities, means thatthe sub-group of employees, namely men with masculine characteristics, may no longer benefit fromtheir positive gender stereotypes. Research has yet to determine how unbiased decision-making may havenegative effects on those who have traditionally benefited from their group membership, but there may
be implications for their self-esteem, job commitment, and other work attitudes and behaviors. And finally, increasing the structure of human resource programs may come at the expense of spontaneity andchemistry. But in the end, reducing discrimination will ensure not only that women are selected, promoted, compensated and included based on their abilities and attributes, but that organizations themselves will be capitalizing on the true talents of their women employees.

NoteThis paper will appear as a chapter in Dirk Steiner, Stephen W. Gilliland & Dan Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues inmanagement: Managing social and ethical issues in organizations. Vol. 5. Westport, CT: Information Age Publishers. 2005.

REFERENCES
Barrett, G.V. & Morris, S.B. 1993. The American Psychological Association's amicus curiae brief in Price Waterhouse v.
Hopkins: The values of science versus the values of the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 201-215.
Bell, M.P., McLaughlin, M.E. & Sequeira, J.M. 2002. Discrimination, harassment and the glass ceiling: Women executives as change agents. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 65-76.

CENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Bielby, W.T. & Baron, J.N. 1986. Men and women at work: Sex segregation and statistical discrimination. American
Journal of Sociology, 91, 739-799.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. Employment status of civilian noninstitutional population, 1940-2003.
Burgess, D. & Borgida, E. 1999. Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665-692.
Carli, L.L. 1990. Gender, language and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
Carli, L.L., LaFleur, S.J. & Loeber, C. C. 1995. Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 68, 1030-1041.
Catalyst.1996. Women in corporate leadership: Progress and prospects. New York: Catalyst.
__________. 2001. Women in financial services: The word on the street. New York: Catalyst.

WORKING PAPERS__________. 2001b. Women in law: Making the case. New York: Catalyst.

36__________. 2002. Census of women corporate officers and top earners of the Fortune 500. New York: Catalyst.
__________. 2004. Women and men in U.S. corporate leadership: Same workplace different realities? New York: Catalyst.
Cejka, M.A. & Eagly, A. H. 1999. Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex-segregation of employment. Sex Roles, 25, 413-423.
Crosby, F. 1984. The Denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371-386.

Davison, H.K. & Burke, M.J. 2000. Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A Meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225-248.
Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L. & Truxillo, D.M. 1988. The Effects of purpose of appraisal and individuals differences instereotypes of women on sex differences in performance ratings: A Laboratory and field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 551-558.
Dobbs, M. & Crano, W.D. 2001. Outgroup accountability in the minimal group paradigm: Implications for aversive
racism and social identity theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 355-364.
Durden, G. & Gaynor, P. 1998. More on the cost of being other than white and male. American Journal of Economics andSociology, 57, 95-103.
Eagly, A.H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A Social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A.H. & Karau, S J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109,573-598.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G. & Klonsky, B. G. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A Meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.
Eddleston, K.A., Baldridge, D.C. & Veiga, J.F. 2004. Toward modeling the predictors of managerial career success: Does
gender matter? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 360-385.
Ensher, E.A., Grant-Vallone, E.J. & Donaldson, S. I. 2001. Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
12, 53-72.

Fiske, S.T., Bersoff, D.N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K. & Heilman, M. E. 1991. Social science research on trial: Use of sex
stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049-1060.
Fiske, S.T. & Taylor, S.E. 1991. Social cognition, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Forret, M.L. & Dougherty, T.W. 2004. Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 419-437.
Gerdes, E.P. & Garber, D.M. 1983. Sex bias in hiring: Effects of job demands and applicant competence. Sex Roles, 9,307-319.
Glick, P., Wilk, K. & Perreault, M. 1995. Images of occupations: Components of gender and status in occupational
stereotypes. Sex Roles, 32, 565-582.
Glick, P., Zion, C. & Nelson, C. 1988. What mediates sex discrimination in hiring decisions? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 55, 178-186.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. & Wormley, W. M. 1990. Effects of race on organizational experiences, job
performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64-86.
Greenhouse, S. 2004, August 18. Woman sues Costco, claiming sex bias in promotions. New York Times, C3.
Gutek, B.A., Cohen, A. G. & Tsui, A. 1996. Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Human Relations, 49, 791-812.
Hebl, M.R., Bigazzi, J.F., Mannix, L.M. & Dovidio, J. F. 2002. Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A Field study ofbias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815-825.
Heilman, M.E. 1983. Sex bias in work settings: The Lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269.

F O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2004. EEOC litigation statistics, FY 1992 through FY 2003. Retrieved
December 1, 2004, from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/litigation.html.

37

__________. 1984. Information as a deterrent against sex discrimination: The Effects of applicant sex and information
type on preliminary employment decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 174-186.
__________. 1995. Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don't know. Journalof Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 1995.
__________. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.
Heilman, M.E., Battle, W.S., Keller, C. E. & Lee, R.A. 1998. Type of affirmative action policy: A Determinant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 190-205.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C., Martell, R. & Simon, M. 1989. Has anything changed? Current characterizations of males,
females and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.
Heilman, M.E. & Chen, J. J. 2003. Entrepreneurship as a solution: The Allure of self-employment for women and minorities. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 347-364.
__________. (In Press). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenshipbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Heilman, M.E. & Okimoto, T. J. 2005 Mitigating penalties for women’s success: The Perceived communality deficiency. Manuscript in preparation.
Heilman, M.E., Martell, R.F. & Simon, M.C. 1988. The Vagaries of sex bias: Conditions regulating the undervaluation,equivaluation, and overvaluation of female job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
41, 98-110.
Heilman, M.E., Wallen, A.S., Fuchs, D. & Tamkins, M.M. 2004 Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed
at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.

WORKING PAPERSCENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Heilman, M.E. & Welle, B. 2004. Disadvantaged by diversity? The Effects of diversity goals on competence perceptions.
Manuscript under review.
Huffcut, A.I. & Arthur, W. Jr. 1994. Hunter & Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79, 184-190.
Ibarra, H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertisingfirm. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 37, 422-447.
Kanter, R.M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Levine, M.P. & Leonard, R. 1984. Discrimination against lesbians in the workforce. Journal of Women in Culture andSociety, 9, 700-710.
Lips, H.M. 2003. The Gender pay gap: Concrete indicator of women’s progress toward equality. Analyses of Social Issues
and Public Policy, 3, 87-109.
Lyness, K.S. & Judiesch, M.K. 1999. Are women more likely to be hired or promoted into management positions? Journalof Vocational Behavior, 54, 158-173.
Lyness, K.S. & Thompson, D.E. 2000. Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the sameroute? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86-101.
Marini, M.M. 1989. Sex differences in earnings in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 343-380.
Martell, R.F., Lane, D.M. & Emrich, C. 1996. Male-female differences: A Computer simulation. American Psychologist,
51, 157-158.
38

Martell, R.F., Parker, C. & Emrich, C. G. 1998. Sex stereotyping in the executive suite: “Much ado about something.”
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 13, 127-138.
Mor Barak, M.E., Cherin, D.A. & Berkman, S. 1998 Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity management:
Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 34, 82-104.
Morris, B., Bonamici, K., Kaufman, S.M. & Neering, P. 2005, January 10. How corporate America is betraying
women. Fortune.
Ostroff, C. & Atwater, L.E. 2003. Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group gender and age composition on managers’ compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 725-740.
Ragins, B.R. & Cotton, J.L. 1991. Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor.
Academy of Management Journal, 34, 939-351.
Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L. & Miller, J.S. 2000. Marginal mentoring: The Effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1117-1194.
Roth, L.M. 2003. Selling women short: A Research note on gender differences in compensation on Wall Street. Social
Forces, 82, 783-802.
Rudman, L.A. 1998. Self promotion as a risk-factor for women: The Costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645.
Rudman, L.A. & Fairchild, K. 2004. Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The Role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157-176.

Sacco, J.M., Scheu, C.R., Ryan, A.M. & Schmitt, N. 2003 An Investigation of race and sex similarity effects in interviews: A multilevel approach to relational demography. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 852-865.
Sackett, P.R., DuBois, C.L. & Noe, A.W. 1991. Tokenism in performance evaluation: The Effects of work group representation on male-female and white-black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
263-267.
Schaffer, M.A., Joplin, J.R.W., Bell, M.P., Lau, T. & Oguz, C.2000. Gender discrimination and job-related outcomes: A
Cross-cultural comparison of working women in the United States and China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57,
395-427.
Schein, E.H. 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
Schein, V. E. 1973. The Relationship between sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 57, 95-100.
__________. 2001. A Global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues,
57, 675-688.
Society for Human Resource Management. 1998. SHRM survey of diversity programs. Alexandria, VA: SHRM.
Stangor, C. 1988. Stereotype accessibility and information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14,694-708.
Terborg, J.R. 1977. Women in management: A Research review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 647-664.

F O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K

Rudman, L.A. & Glick, P. 1999. Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The Hidden costs towomen of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 5, 1004-1010.

Tetlock, P.E. & Kim, J.I. 1987. Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700-709.
39

Thomas, D.A. & Ely, R.J. 1996, September–October. Making differences matter: A New paradigm for managing
diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74 (5), 79-90.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W. & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
Welle, B. 2004, April. What’s holding women back? Barriers to women’s advancement as perceived by top executives.
Presented in J. P. DePasquale (Chair), Women in the executive suite: Barriers to equal workplace advancement. Symposium
conducted at the 19th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.

WORKING PAPERSCENTER FOR PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Welle, B. & Button, S.B. 2004. Workplace experiences of lesbian and gay employees: A Review of current research. In
C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 19,
139-170. London: John Wiley.

40