the costs of gender bias in tennessee's workforce - 10-27-15

October 2015

Part of the Women & Work: Barriers Series Tennessee Economic Council on Women

Gender Bias In Tennessee’s Workforce How unconscious assumptions about gender create costly inefficiencies in Tennessee’s workforce and undercut the economic wellbeing of women and families

Implicit Gender Bias is the unconscious manifestation of assumptions and preferences

we all hold about male and female behavior. This report considers the effects of

longstanding male-provider and female-caregiver stereotypes at a time when women are

increasingly relied upon to be providers; and explores how bias can unknowingly tip the

balance against women in a workforce that seeks competence, assertiveness, and

independence—but preferably from men.

The Costs of

One of the most enduring features of human society is the classification of men and women as providers and caretakers,

respectively. However, this division of labor has become increasingly blurred in recent decades, particularly as divorce rates

have risen, job security has plummeted, and women have entered the workforce in greater numbers. Today, women in

Tennessee and across the world are providers—often sole providers—at unprecedented rates.

Unfortunately, while these traditionally gendered roles have shifted considerably in just a handful of generations, the way

most of us think about men and women in the context of work and the economy still fits the old mold. Longstanding societal

norms call on men to earn more, to be proactive, determined, independent, and even prideful; and in contrast we expect

women to manage households and to be communal, deferential, and emotional—or risk social backlash.

These expectations are economically damaging because the male-gendered qualities (and the individuals who exhibit them)

are also strongly associated with competence and leadership, and the female-gendered traits are not. As a result, stubborn

gender assumptions and expectations can unknowingly tip the scales and promote inefficiencies in our economy, including

the misallocation of human capital, wages, influence, and other resources on the basis of sex rather than merit. It is difficult

to quantify the aggregate impact of skewed hiring decisions or the statewide consequence of under-utilizing a huge portion of

our workforce, but it is easy to imagine the debilitating effect that gender bias can have on the wellbeing of individual

Tennessee families, or on businesses struggling in an outdated environment to find the best person for the job.

Hiring, compensation offerings, negotiations, promotions, performance evaluations, attributions of project success, impres-

sion management, and managerial effectiveness; these are many of the situations in which unconscious, implicit gender bias

has been shown in studies and in the real world to disadvantage women. Even as overt acts of sexism and discrimination

have waned dramatically, decades of research have revealed that these more subtle, enduring barriers continue to undercut

the ability of women to reach their economic potential, fulfill their aspirations, and satisfy their growing role as providers

and caretakers for Tennessee’s children.

At a time when Tennessee is ranked 38th in the nation in the economic wellness its youth (Speer & Gutierrez, 2015); single

mothers support nearly one in three households with children, and 45% of those households live in poverty (U.S. Census), it

is vital to our future that we confront every challenge to their economic stability and growth.

The Economic Council on Women is pleased to submit the following report, which explores the economic threat of every-

day, unconscious gender bias and provides recommendations to policymakers, employers, and members of the workforce

derived from the most modern, authoritative research available. In addition, it will attempt to provide a baseline reference for

the Economic Council’s future study of workforce barriers by highlighting how this social and psychological force factors

into prominent discussions on the wage gap, industry gender segregation, corporate governance, and others.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dr. Dena Wise

Chair

Dr. Phyllis Qualls-Brooks

Executive Director

William Arth

Senior Research Manager

Page intentionally blank

v

Table of Contents

Letter from the Chair ..................................................................................... iii

Council Roster & Report Credits .................................................................... vi

Special thanks and explanation of format ............................................ vii

A note on gender and sex ..................................................................... vii

Introduction & Executive Summary ............................................................... 9

The business case for addressing gender bias in Tennessee ................. 10

The Basics of Implicit Gender Bias in the Workforce ..................................... 12

Gender: Our brains’ use of shortcuts to guide behavior ....................... 12

Ambiguity: Where implicit bias persists ............................................... 12

The Male-Provider/Female-Caregiver Binary Social Model .................. 13

Gender Bias in:

Self-Promotion & Impression Management .................................................. 15

Hiring & Wages .............................................................................................. 20

Negotiation .................................................................................................... 24

Work Attribution & Evaluation ...................................................................... 31

Leadership ..................................................................................................... 36

How Does Bias Factor into the Wage Gap? ................................................... 40

The Intersection of Gender, Race, and other Biases ...................................... 42

Takeaways & Recommendations ................................................................... 44

Workers ................................................................................................ 44

Employers ............................................................................................ 46

Others .................................................................................................. 49

Bibliography ................................................................................................... 50

vii

Tennessee Economic Council on Women

Dr. Phyllis Qualls-Brooks, Executive Director

The One Hundredth General Assembly created the Tennessee Economic Council on Women (TCA § 4-50-101, et seq.) to address the economic concerns and needs of women in Tennessee. The Council conducts research, holds hearings, develops recommendations and policy, educates the public, and engages in activities for the benefit of women. It is authorized to request funds from the federal government and private sources. The Council consults with and reports to the Governor, the Women’s Legislative Caucus, the General Assembly and the pertinent agencies, departments, boards, commissions and other entities of State and local govern-ments on matters pertaining to women. Our Vision: Economic equality, literacy, impact, opportunity and stability for every woman in Tennessee. Our Mission: The Tennessee Economic Council on Women is an economic advocate for women.

Its purpose is to assess the economic status of women in Tennessee in order to develop and advocate for solutions

that will address their economic needs and promote economic autonomy. The Council’s areas of study include, but

are not limited to: employment policies and practices, educational needs and opportunities, child care, property

rights, health care, domestic relations, and the effect of federal and state laws on women.

Visit the Economic Council at www.tennesseewomen.org

Or call us at 615.253.4266 to learn more

Report Credits

This report was commissioned by the Tennessee Economic Council on Women in 2014 as part of the Wom-

en & Work: Barriers series. Beginning with this document, the Barriers series explores how gender impacts

the financial stability and growth of Tennessee women.

Authored and prepared by William Arth, Senior Research Manager ([email protected])

Under the advisement of Executive Director Phyllis Qualls-Brooks

With support from Margaret Groeschl; Noel Blackmire; and John Dewees, MLIS, Ohio State University

Images from State of Tennessee Photo Services, Alan Stark, audio luci, Tim Bishop, and open sources.

Leslee Alexander Ann Ayers-Colvin Dr. Mimi Barnard Andrea Burckhard Rep. Karen Camper, Vice Chair Dr. Carol Danehower Maleia Evans Commissioner Many-Bears Grinder Veronica Marable Johnson

Representative Sherry Jones Senator Becky Massey Ruby Miller Dr. Janet Smith Robin Smith Representative Johnnie Turner Kathleen Armour Walker Representative Dawn White Dr. Dena Wise, Chair

http://www.tennesseewomen.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://tnphotoservices.com/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/squeaks2569/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/audiolucistore/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/29881930@N00/

The Costs of Gender Bias in Tennessee’s Workforce - October 2015

viii

Special thanks and explanation of format

This document attempts to transcribe a rich host of academic research into a publically accessible, broadly useful

format, interwoven with information specific to Tennessee. In this effort, the author is particularly thankful to those

researchers whose excellent work is not only referenced, but depicted here in a series of vignettes, illustrating the

outcome of economically significant processes in ways that could not be done so credibly in the form of personal

accounts, nor so vividly as discrete citations. In order of the appearance of their work, thank you to: O. A. O’Neill, C. A.

O’Reilly III, L. A. Rudman, C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, J. Handelsman, E. Reuben, P.

Sapienza, L. Zingales, L. J. Kray, L. Thompson, H. R. Bowles, L. Babcock, L. Lai, J. A. Kennedy, A. B. Van Zant, K. McGinn,

A. Galinsky, M. E. Heilman, M. C. Haynes, M. Biernat, M. J. Tocci, J. C. Williams, and T. G. Okimoto.

A note on gender and sex

This publication uses the terms gender and sex interchangeably, and tackles both from the largely homogenous view

shared by the majority of Tennessean’s. This is done for readability and clarity, and is not intended to be dismissive

toward those who may not identify with traditional sex and gender classifications, nor toward those whose view of

gender roles do not align with that portrayed herein. Indeed, one of the goals of this report is to calibrate the link

between sex, gender, and the presumed roles or capabilities of a person. It remains the case, however, that the vast

majority of research and experience relevant to gender bias is limited to populations for whom there is little or no

distinction between the “being” of sex and “doing” of gender (Ridgeway, 2009).

Perhaps more than any other subject of study for the TECW, gender bias is rooted in this wholly binary approach to

gender—not just as an indicator of sex but also, automatically, of gender and a rigid series of associated standards. As

such, observations and conclusions reached in this document are likely relevant to the majority of Tennesseans, but

perhaps not all. As a dedicated advocate for all women and families in Tennessee, we strive each day for our work to

reach a greater audience with richer impact. We encourage those with further questions or concerns about the

Economic Council’s research to contact us directly.


9

The topic of gender bias is a fitting foundation for the TECW’s “Women & Work: Barriers Series” because our common-

ly held perceptions of what it means to be male or female are among the most enduring and pervasive guides of

human behavior. Even today, after centuries of hard-earned progress, the classification of one’s gender still translates

to specific treatment and expectations about one’s behavior and ability—with crucial effect in the workforce.

Research and experience both confirm that we don’t just see gender, we use it to coordinate interaction, to predict

characteristics and skills; we assign responsibilities, penalize aberrance, and even set standards for ourselves to live up

to—all based on what we believe it means to be male or female and how one does something in a masculine or

feminine way (The Basics of Implicit Gender Bias in the Workforce). Indeed, even jobs and tasks themselves become

“gendered” in ways that can make men or women seem especially ill-suited or unwelcome.

In a workforce where many of the overt forms of gender discrimination have receded, it is crucial to be educated about

the more subtle, unintentional, or “implicit” forms of bias that continue to harm both workers and employers. Many of

these observations will be familiar to readers, but are often subject to dismissal because they are supported only by

anecdotal experiences (The Male-Provider/Female-Caregiver Binary Social Model). In an effort to create consensus and

a valid cause for action, this document defines the problem of gender bias in the workforce by connecting those

everyday observations with empirical evidence and labor market observations.

Importantly, this report is not intended to provide a universal account of the hazards women face in the workforce

(future reports will likely address topics like workplace policies, time use, and parenting), nor can this document

encapsulate the full effects of bias, as we all encounter forms of bias based on our characteristics and actions. Some

forms of bias have been observed to overlap and interact with gender bias in experiments (The Intersection of Gender,

Race, and Other Bias), but this report is limited primarily to the specific and potent effects of gender bias alone.

At the foundation of gender bias in the workforce are two expressions of the male-provider/female-caregiver binary:

(1) women are poorly equipped to succeed in male-gendered jobs and tasks; and (2) women should not betray tradi-

tional female expectations. The bulk of this report will explore how these social rules, in the form of implicit gender

bias, infiltrate economically significant processes to the detriment of women and businesses.

Gender Bias in Self-Promotion & Impression-Management: The assumption that women are not qualified to perform

well in male-gendered tasks creates a need for self-promotion. This need creates a dilemma for women because self-

promotion is thought of as a stereotypically male-gendered behavior and violates traditional female expectations of

warmth and modesty. The result is an “Impression-Management Dilemma” in which women, unlike men, must strike a

career-long balance between separate—and sometimes opposite—behaviors or risk being penalized by observers and

assigned lower status, deemed less competent, less likable, and less desirable as a boss, employee, or coworker.

Introduction & Executive Summary

By measuring the impact of bias in experimentation, observing behaviors in the labor market,

and evaluating historical gender customs we can triangulate and identify how gender stereo-

types disrupt economically significant processes, create costly inefficiencies for businesses,

and undercut the financial health of women and their households.


10

Gender Bias in Hiring & Wages: Expectations that women cannot or should not perform certain work are shown to bias

observers against them relative to male peers, even when factors like experience and past performance are equal.

Based on the difference of gender alone, women are unconsciously assumed to be less competent, less hireable,

deserving of lower wages, and less worthy of mentorship. As a result, gender bias (including instances of overt discrimi-

nation) appears to be directly responsible for approximately one-fourth of the gender wage gap, but it is also likely a

historic factor in the other three-fourths, as it has contributed substantially to ongoing industry and role segregation.

Gender Bias is Negotiation: In its traditional form, negotiation is the most “male-gendered” behavior discussed in this

document. Adversarial and domineering, we commonly treat this process as a crucible in which interests are assumed

to be divergent, past successes are displayed, and prowess can be proven. The result is that women, who are asked to

be modest, communal, submissive actors, are less likely to initiate negotiation, generally achieve weaker outcomes,

and are assumed to be poor negotiators. This last fact is important because female success in negotiation appears to

be rooted less in the traits or perspective of women and more in how negotiation is viewed in society and what

information is available to negotiators. Illustrating this point, the perception that women are poor negotiators appears

to encourage deceit in their counterparts, leading to a higher rate of bad deals.

Gender Bias in Work Attribution & Evaluation: In male-gendered fields and roles, success itself can be unfeminine.

Stereotypes establishing women as less technically competent can cause observers to devalue their perceived influ-

ence in positive outcomes, particularly when working with men. Indeed, women are even shown to discount their own

contribution to mixed-gender projects. Unfortunately, this phenomenon continues into the realm of formal evalua-

tions, where women can be undervalued as a result of implicit gender bias in “gut reaction” numerical-scale ratings and

where observers tend to grade women according to less valuable metrics like social warmth rather than competence.

Gender Bias in Leadership: Challenges to female success can extend to the achievement of authority, which is itself

male-gendered in much of the workforce. As a result, women in leadership roles often face a high degree of scrutiny

and are at risk of being undermined by social backlash and assumptions that their successes have been created by

some other force. Additionally, expressions of emotion—particularly anger—that can be acceptable and even valuable

for managers can be seen as internally motivated and inappropriate for women.

The business case for addressing gender bias in Tennessee The world has changed and traditional expectations that men become economic providers and women remain caregiv-

ers in the home are further from reality today than they have ever been. Unfortunately, these expectations continue to

be reinforced all around us—in social and familial interactions, media portrayals, laws, and policies—and they create

harmful inequalities in our workforce. For example, women comprise 47% of Tennessee’s workforce, but continue to

be underrepresented in high-growth and high-wage job sectors like transportation and warehousing, production,

management, and finance (Jobs4TN.gov), where men are traditionally dominant and women are perceived as having a

“lack of fit.” Similarly, women hold just 36% of all managerial positions and make up just 26% of Tennessee’s business

owners according to the U.S. Census. Women also consistently earn less than men, according to median full-time year-

round wages, in virtually every job sector, with gaps ranging from 15% to 85% by industry (U.S. Census), and gender

bias is believed to be directly responsible for around 5%, with some estimates approaching 10% or more

(approximately $2,000 to $5,000) of the gender wage gap (Greszler & Sherk, 2014; Hall, & Reed, 2001).

Gender bias is also a pervasive market inefficiency. By artificially linking men and women to specific roles and tasks,

and by reinforcing expectations of low achievement and low value for women, bias hampers employers’ ability to

choose from the best and largest possible pool of candidates, leads to ineffective incentives for women, undermines



11

the ability of managers and peers to identify and reward success accurately, and diminishes the extent to which

Tennessee can benefit from diverse perspectives in decision-making and labor.

Finally, while equal access to opportunity and resources are vital rights, and increased economic performance would

be a boon to our State, the most compelling reasons to eliminate gender bias in the workforce are that (1) women are

providing for future generations on a large scale, and (2) many of those with the most responsibility are struggling the

most financially. Illustrating this point, women are providers in 67% of all Tennessee homes with children under 18, are

the sole providers in nearly one in four such homes, and are 77% of all custodial single parents. At the same time,

Tennessee women make up 69% of all Tenncare recipients between the ages of 19 and 64—those of provider age, and

women (19%) were more likely than men (16%) to live in poverty in 2013. Most jarring, however, is the fact that single

mothers—those 77% of custodial parents—lived in poverty at an incredible rate of 46% in Tennessee (versus 40% in

the US)(US Census; TN Department of Human Services, Dec. 2014).

A number of observations have been collected later in this document (Takeaways & Recommendations) for considera-

tion by workers, employers, and thought-leaders in Tennessee. In the long-term, it must be our state’s goal to better

reflect reality in the ways we view gender relative to the roles of provider and caregiver. That is a substantial undertak-

ing, and while this document will offer thoughts on the matter, its focus remains on the short term, where men and

women can make subtle changes today that will have great impact. Chiefly, in a time when women are implicitly

assumed to be less capable, and less likely to have contributed to success in many fields and roles, we must work to

eliminate ambiguity in economically significant processes. The following pages explore these processes in detail and

highlight how very subtle changes in the presentation of a situation can overcome unconscious bias and result in better

decisions for all involved.


By addressing gender bias in Tennessee, we will strengthen the upward mobility and financial

stability of so many of our state’s providers and many of our most vulnerable. In doing so,

we’ll not only serve a population in need, ensure economic freedoms, and build better busi-

nesses; we’ll promote the well-being and achievement of future generations of Tennesseans.


12

Gender: How our brains use shortcuts and frames to guide our actions in biased ways. As humans are confronted with complex decisions or situations where information is lacking, our brains often employ

shortcuts, or “heuristics,” to arrive at judgements more quickly. These shortcuts tend to focus on specific features of a

situation rather than the whole, and while they typically furnish a satisfactory result, they can also lead to irrational or

suboptimal decisions – particularly in instances of high complexity or ambiguity. This report will focus specifically on

the use of stereotyping, but other examples of heuristics include making an educated guess or intuitive judgement, or

applying a “rule of thumb.”

Social situations can be incredibly complex, so our brains often rely on stereotypes to guide how we view and organize

information as well as how we coordinate behavior with others—sometimes imperfectly. In many ways, stereotypes

function like personal knowledge of someone by helping us to understand and plan our actions, but unlike personal

knowledge, stereotypes are not based on each specific person we encounter. Stereotypes are imperfect tools because

they are built on generic information and experiences provided by the world around us, which we then apply to the

individuals according to common characteristics such as their sex.

When we observe that someone is male or female in sex, we translate that information into a social category of cultur-

ally defined standards of difference: a gender. Gender is one of the most prominent “frames” that we use to categorize

and utilize both personal and stereotypical information. Age and Race are two other widely significant frames, but

many other, more specific examples exist and are thought to influence relationships within subgroups like families, po-

litical parties, and corporations. Importantly, gender categorization occurs automatically and unconsciously (Ridgeway,

2009).

When we use frames like gender to call up stereotypes and apply them to a person or situation, it exposes us to errors

in judgement called bias. Specifically, stereotypes can be used to gauge the likely behavior and traits of others

(descriptive bias), or define how we think another person should act (prescriptive bias) or should not act (proscriptive

bias) (Phelan & Rudman, 2010). Stereotypes are sometimes accurate enough—which is why our brains use them—so

bias specifically refers to instances when stereotypes are applied unfairly or inaccurately, and this report focuses on

those that erroneously or harmfully portray women as out of place in the workforce.

Ambiguity: Where implicit bias persists despite a sharp decline in explicit discrimination. Perhaps the most jarring aspect of bias is that it can be formed and expressed without us knowing it, through the use

of the stereotyping heuristic. Modern social psychology has revealed that much of our perception and interaction is

guided by the mental operations that occur beneath our conscious focus, and the bias expressed in this way is referred

to as implicit bias. Importantly, implicit bias is neither intentional nor easily detectable by those expressing it, and is

distinctly different from intentional, thoughtful, or “cognitively busy” expressions of bias, which are called explicit bias.

Explicit bias has grown less common in the modern workplace and includes acts of overt discrimination or other prefer-

The Basics of Implicit Gender Bias in the Workforce

“Sex categorization unconsciously primes gender stereotypes in our minds and makes them

cognitively available to shape behavior and judgement.” (Ridgeway, 2009)


13

ences of which a person is aware and has not corrected for before taking action. This distinction is crucial because we

cannot assume that the absence of explicit bias signals the absence of implicit bias; each day, we utilize stereotypes to

counter ambiguity where better information is not readily available. This unintended and often unnoticed behavior is

consequential to everyone as it works at the margins of decision-making, but it can be especially harmful to groups like

women, who can easily have the scales tipped against them by static assumptions that they lack the necessary skills or

qualities to succeed in much of the workforce.

The negative assumptions that women encounter are often linked to their traditional role as caregivers in society as

opposed to providers. Understanding the way in which we have assigned the role of provider to men and caregiver to

women can be helpful in predicting and avoiding expressions of bias in the workforce.

The Male-Provider/Female-Caregiver Binary Social Model One of the most enduring features of human society is the classification of men and women as providers and caretak-

ers, respectively. Today, despite the fact that women are providers, leaders, and workers in unprecedented numbers,

most of the gender-related stereotypes we employ are based on outmoded assumptions that women do not need to,

or cannot effectively function as primary economic agents. This fundamental misunderstanding of capability is rooted

in a patriarchal tradition that has been eroded over centuries of social change, but it’s impact is still felt in our work-

force today, where bias often influences the outcomes of economically significant processes and those traits conducive

to social and professional success are mutually-exclusive for women. The Male-Provider/Female-Caregiver Binary So-

cial Model (Figure 01) is a collection of the most common stereotypes applied to men and women in the workforce and

can serve as a guide for predicting the characteristics and impact of gender bias in the workforce.

Longstanding stereotypes about men call on them to fill the “provider” role, in which they earn substantially more, are

proactive, determined, independent, prideful, assertive, and risk-taking (commonly referred to as “agentic” behavior).

In contrast, women are generally defined as “caregivers” who are expected to be communal, warm, deferential,

selfless, emotional, and poorly equipped for tasks that require agency or high technical competence. This provider/

caregiver binary not only assumes that men will work and women will stay home to care for family members, it asserts

that they are each best suited to these roles—though women are permitted to work in specific professions, which tend

to overlap with caregiving responsibilities (e.g. education, food service, medical care). Importantly, both sexes risk

some degree of social backlash for breaking away from these expectations, but only women are frequently forced to do

so to make a living; while men are stereotypically associated with social and economic resources, women are system-

atically separated from them (Bowles, 2006).

Just as certain traits have become associated with the male and female genders, so too have specific actions, roles, and

environments, which are said to be “gendered” as male or female. Research indicates that for gender-neutral acts, men

are typically assumed to be more agentically competent and more worthy of status, resulting in a modest advantage. In

the instance of heavily male-gendered professions such as those in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering,

mathematics), law, and business, men tend to be strongly favored. In female-gendered acts and professions, women

tend to be weakly favored, except in positions of authority, where male advantages persist (Ridgeway, 2009). In these


“Stereotypes, along with other elements of attitudes toward particular social groups, can bias

decision making implicitly, by skewing the manner in which inherently ambiguous infor-

mation about the stereotyped target is perceived, characterized, attributed, encoded in and

retrieved from memory, and used in social judgment” (Krieger, 2004).


14

results we see with a bit more detail how the traits and roles affiliated with women are those least

connected to economic, professional, and civic success, and how expectations of female warmth do not align with the

professional expectations of competence and agency required in male-gendered tasks. This dilemma is the crux of the

gender bias problem.

The gendering of roles also helps to illuminate how stereotypes are embedded in new individuals and institutions, be-

coming part of a fluctuating, but self-reinforcing cycle that can persist through time, outlast change-makers, and

threaten to roll back progress. Indeed, men and women even emulate and enforce these behavioral rules for them-

selves. For Tennessee, this means that correcting the economic inefficiencies that result from gender bias will require

efforts at both the personal and institutional level.

“As a background identity, gender typically acts to bias in gendered directions the perfor-

mance of behaviors undertaken in the name of more concrete, foregrounded organizational

roles or identities. Thus, gender becomes a way of acting like a doctor or of driving a car.…

We so instantly sex-categorize others that our subsequent categorizations of them as, say,

bosses or coworkers are nested in our prior understandings of them as male or female and

take on slightly different meanings as a result. (Ridgeway 2009)


Masculine Traits

High-status Technically

Competent Assertive Dominant Confident Risk-seeking Forceful Competitive Independent Result-

Oriented

Work

Earn

Compete

Home

Care

Nurture

Feminine Traits

Low-status Interpersonally

Warm Submissive Communal Deferential Modest Risk-averse

The Male-Provider/Female-Caregiver Binary Social Model

Figure 01


15

Key Findings:

Competence and likeability are both valued characteristics in the workforce. This benefits male candidates, who are

assumed to be technically competent according to gender stereotypes, and are permitted to be work-oriented while

still being likeable. In contrast, women are stereotypically viewed primarily as social actors: they are required to be

warm and communal to be likeable, and they are presumed not to possess high technical competency.

Self-promotion is an important tool used by both women and men to establish competence in the workforce. This is

particularly important for women—who are not automatically assumed to be technically competent—but implicit gen-

der bias complicates use of self-promotion because it contradicts stereotypical expectations of female modesty. As a

result, female self-promoters are likely to encounter social backlash that portrays them as less likeable.

Competence tends to be valued at a higher rate than likeability, with self-promoters of either gender tending to have

more success than their modest peers. Likely as a result of the trade-offs between competence and likeability for

women, self-promoting men retain an advantage over self-promoting women; however, women who can juggle self-

promotion with more communal behaviors may be able to level the playing field and possibly exercise an advantage.

Because implicit biases are never completely unlearned, self-promotion and its hazards are relevant throughout a

career, in virtually every economically significant practice, including hiring, negotiation, teamwork, promotion, and

leadership.

Perhaps unexpectedly, men and women share the same basic expectations for male and female behavior and ability,

with both assuming lower female technical competence and both placing women in an impression-management

dilemma between competence and likeability.

In fact, women may actually be more likely to penalize female self-promoters, and may do so more severely. This de-

fense of female modesty may be explained by the tendency for individuals with lower societal status to take pride in

selected characteristics that are viewed as emblematic of their group.

Observers (particularly men) have been shown to overlook violations of female modesty if they see a direct connec-

tion between their own future success and the female candidate’s competency (as expressed through self-promotion).

This process for selectively valuing information in relation to a specific result is referred to as outcome dependency.

Why This Matters Understanding how self-promotion will be received by others is crucial to its effective use. While specific workforce

situations include a multitude of variables, the ability of an individual to influence the perception of others remains

consistently important, as does the innate response of observers, who may or may not approve of someone’s self-

promotion based solely on their gender. Conversely, observers’ ability to receive and digest self-promotion rational-

ly is critical to effective, economically sound decision-making (see more in: Hiring & Wages).

Just as workers must carefully manage the impressions they give off, it is incredibly important that employers

implement transparency efforts to minimize the inefficiencies caused by gender bias in general, and by biased

responses to self-promotion in particular.

Self-Promotion & Impression-Management

Gender Bias in


16


The Hazards of Self-Promotion for

Women Self-promotion is a vital tool used by both sexes to

secure employment, raises, and advancements, as

well as to define personal contributions to work

efforts, and steer future assignments. Also discussed

as part of an overall strategy of impression-

management, self-promotion is a common way for

individuals to express their competence to peers and

observers. Unfortunately, research and experience

indicate that self-promotion can lead to dispropor-

tionate social backlash for women, who employ this

tool in contrast with gender prescriptions of modesty

(Rudman, 1998). Though men are generally encour-

aged by the traditional male-provider/female-

caregiver binary social model to exhibit characteristics

like pride and self-assurance, which are closely

aligned with both professional success and social

status for men, “women who behave confidently and

assertively are not as well received as men who

engage in the same behaviors (Rudman, 1998).” In

other words, impression-management poses a unique

challenge for women because most economically

significant situations call for both competency and

likeability, which come from two separate—and often

opposite—sets of behaviors for women.

This double-standard is sometimes described as the

“Impression-Management Dilemma” or the “Backlash

Effect,” and is reliably observable in experiments,

where “agentic behavior, behavior that demonstrates

dominance, competitiveness, and achievement

orientation, is generally considered out of bounds for

women (Heilman, 2007).” This dilemma is viewed as a

barrier to success for women at every stage of the

professional spectrum, and has been the topic of

much debate in recent years, with some arguing that

women should be more “agentic” and others caution-

ing that this behavior can show competence, but also

triggers implicitly biased responses labelling women

as “cold,” “bossy,” or worse. Thankfully, while

individual circumstances are influenced by many

variables, researchers continue to make gains in our

understanding of how implicit gender bias interacts

with self-promotion and other agentic behaviors in

practices like hiring, negotiation, and leadership.

A Preference for Competence While the risk of social backlash against female self-

promoters is consistently present, available data

indicates that the social harm done may only rarely

outweigh the value of projecting competence, and

that artfully balancing both sides may even provide

some women with advantages over male competi-

tors.

This observation held true in a recent analysis of MBA

graduates who were eight years into their profes-

sions. In it, female graduates who exhibited masculine

traits like self-assurance and dominance were shown

to receive approximately 50% more promotions than

women who were more traditionally “feminine” and

reserved (O’Neill, 2011).

This outcome is common in the literature, where

likeability tends to result in lower overall gains than

projected competence for women in male-gendered

roles and fields. Importantly, this study also measured

participants’ ability to self-monitor their gendered

The Importance and Prevalence of Self-Promotion

Figure 02: Self-promotion is an impression-management tool likely

employed in every stage of one’s career. Because Implicit gender

biases appear never to be unlearned, steps must be taken by work-

ers and employers to allow both men and women to talk about

their successes without penalty.

Hiring

Negotiation

Teamwork

Advancement

Leadership

Self-Promotion


17


behaviors and discovered an important benefit for

women who can employ both male- and female-

gendered qualities strategically. Whereas self-

promoting females rarely prevail in competitions with

self-promoting males, this study revealed a signifi-

cantly higher rate of

promotions for those

women who were highly

self-monitored and could

detect when to be agentic

and when to be passive.

This group not only

outpaced passive women

and men in promotions,

but also agentic men

(O’Neill, 2011).

Another trend echoed in this study is the plight of self

-effacing, communal men, who tend to lose out to

their more agentic peers of both genders across the

literature. However, it is important to note that these

men are penalized less than women for acting outside

of gender expectations. In fact, even when they

depart from agentic behavior, men still benefit from a

stereotype-based assumption of greater competence

than modest women—who remain very likeable, but

continue to be viewed as less competent than

similarly qualified peers (Rudman, 1998).

More Than First Impressions As observers, when we conjure up impressions of a

coworker, boss, or potential hire, they tend to include

assumptions or expectations that are formed implicit-

ly, that is, unconsciously and automatically (Koch,

Konigorski, & Sieverding, 2014). Because these

impressions are so immediate, and because they

thrive in circumstances where information is lacking,

first impressions—say, upon interviewing a candi-

date—might seem to be most vulnerable to bias, but

these moments are by no means the only ones where

bias can play a role, nor do assumptions made in an

initial meeting necessarily go away over time. Re-

search shows that, even when consciously rejected,

the assumptions we make unconsciously are not lost;

rather than replacing implicit views, explicit views are

added. “This leaves the social perceiver with dual

attitudes towards members of the stereotyped group,

one set implicit and the

other explicit. These

attitudes tend to

dominate social infor-

mation processing in

different circumstanc-

es—one when con-

scious, deliberative

thought is possible, and

the other in more

spontaneous settings, and when the actor does not

view their behavior as expressing an attitude toward a

target group (Krieger, 2004).” These implicit and

explicit responses compete, in relation to non-

gendered situational cues, to shape behavior (Bowles,

2005). Importantly, while explicit views do not appear

to replace implicit views, these implicit associations

do seem to be augmentable, at least for short periods

of time, by counterstereotypical experiences (Roos,

Lebrecht, Tanaka, & Tarr, 2013) and conditioning (Hu,

Antony, Creery, Vargas, Bodenhausen, & Paller,

2015).

The Relevance of Observer Gender

The characteristics of one’s observers and the

environment in which they interact can regulate the

influence of bias in a situation and significantly shape

its outcome—though maybe not how you’d expect.

Gender stereotypes are ubiquitous in our society, and

all men and women will encounter gender bias in

some way, regardless of other characteristics like

social status, age, or race (which come with their own

forms of bias). Just as its presence is constant, the

direction of bias in the workforce tends to be con-

sistent as well, with working women very likely being

disadvantaged by it, often without anyone being

...most economically significant

situations call for both

competency and likeability, which

come from two separate—and

often opposite—sets of behaviors

for women.


18

consciously aware of it. One might expect this

universally shared injustice to make special allies of

women, but this is not necessarily the case. In fact,

women tend to share and employ the same implicit

assumptions and expectations as men, and can

sometimes be their most strident enforcers.

Ingrained from a young age, expectations for what a

scientist, CEO, nurse, or homemaker looks like are

similar for both men and women, and even working

women in male-gendered fields show little or no

differentiation from men in the application or variety

of gender bias.

In a rare example where male and female participants

did enforce gender stereotypes differently, female

(but not male) evaluators were shown to penalize

female self-promoters more harshly than male self-

promoters. Specifically, female participants in an

experiment at Rutgers University (Rudman, 1998)

found self-promoting female candidates to be less

competent, less socially attractive, and less hireable

than self-promoting men, and consistently chose the

self-promoting men for their partner in a future work

activity. Male evaluators were less likely to penalize

female self-promotion under certain conditions (see:

Outcome Dependency). Because self-promotion is a

direct violation of the female prescription of modesty,

a possible explanation offered for the strong response

of female evaluators is the observed tendency for

disenfranchised group members to protect self-worth

by selectively overvaluing the attributes associated

with their group —i.e. modesty. This study, in itself,

should not be treated as a definitive predictor of

female behavior, but warns that the participation of

women in an economically significant process does

not singularly ensure unbiased behavior, nor is it likely

to create a female advantage.

Observer Motivations & Outcome

Dependency

Similar to the way that preexisting biases can influ-

ence evaluation and judgement, the future strategic

relationship between two individuals can shape the

type of information that is sought out or viewed as

relevant in the present. This process of picking and

choosing from facts to support a desired result is

known as outcome dependency. In the previously

mentioned study (Rudman, 1998), experimenters

used three interview scenarios to explore why an

evaluator might ask different questions and might

assign different significance to gender violations

depending on the workplace relationship they

anticipated sharing with the candidate.

All three interview scenarios required study partici-

pants to interact with male and female candidates

(actors) for a job. Some were asked to “get-to-know”

candidates in a casual format; some were tasked with

formally evaluating candidates to ensure success in a

future trivia exercise; and a third group was given the

opportunity to choose a candidate to be their partner

in a trivia competition for a cash prize. Simultaneous-

ly, the candidate-actors were assigned roles and

scripts that expressed either modesty or self-

promotion. The study’s proctors then offered partici-

pants a series of interview questions to choose from

(some with a strong connection to gendered behav-

ior, e.g. “Are you by nature a competitive person?“)

and monitored which questions and candidates they

favored in the context of the three interaction types.

The “get-to-know-them” interaction type established

no future strategic relationship between partners,

and thus did not encourage outcome dependency. In

the second group participants were responsible for



19

assessing the likely performance of candidates. This

didn’t establish a future relationship either, but it did

allow researchers to measure the use of gender-

coded questions when gauging potential perfor-

mance. Participants in the third group were choosing

partners, which prompted them to consider what

makes a good trivia contestant and also established a

strategic relationship in which the chosen candidate’s

future success would benefit the evaluator directly—

fertile ground for outcome dependency.

The results revealed that evaluators, both male and

female, adjust the sort of information they seek, the

type of candidate they favor, and the degree to which

they value stereotype-confirming behavior according

to their immediate responsibility and their future

relationship with the candidate.

Generally speaking, gender appeared to matter least

when the stakes were lowest. Both men and women

with no goal other than to get acquainted with the

candidate were least likely to pick questions relevant

to gender stereotypes, and typically found self-

promoters of both sexes to be most hireable after-

ward.

When the evaluators were asked to refer a candidate

or to select them to be their partner in the trivia

game, however, gender mattered. Interestingly,

though, men and women treated gender and stereo-

type-violations differently. Women consistently

penalized female self-promoters, favoring male self-

promoters over modest men and all female candi-

dates. Men also preferred self-promoting men over

similar, self-promoting women when they were asked

to endorse a candidate, but behaved differently when

they were choosing a partner for the trivia competi-

tion. In this final condition the strategic relationship

between evaluator and candidate outweighed the

preference for a candidate who would fit their

stereotypical mold—women could be self-promoters

because the competence they promised would

benefit the evaluator directly. As a result, the male

evaluators chose approximately evenly between male

and female self-promoters despite favoring male

partners before further information was made

available.


The Impact of Gender on Information Sought and

Used in Various Circumstances

Encounter Type

Gendered Questions?

Decision Criteria

Get-to-know-them

No NA

Job Referral Yes Gender

Influenced

Future Partner Yes Outcome

Dependent

Figure 03: Gendered questions were more likely to be selected

when the stakes were high. This led to backlash against female self

-promoters in the referral condition, but the importance of gender

(and possible violations) diminished when the self-promoter’s

skills could be seen benefiting their future partner (Rudman, 1998).


20

Key Findings:

Implicit Gender Bias (unconscious, automatic stereo-

typing) can tip the scales in hiring and compensation

decisions on the basis of stereotypes rooted in the his-

toric male-provider/female-caregiver social model.

Implicit gender bias is reliably measurable in laboratory

settings, where men and women both associate men

with technical competence and leadership, and are like-

ly to unknowingly favor male candidates in hiring and

wage decisions—particularly in male-gendered fields

(STEM, etc.) and roles (leadership positions).

Implicit gender bias is one of several direct contributors to a workforce that is highly segregated by gender, with men

dominating high-paying fields and positions, and women being concentrated in “pink collar” jobs, which offer lower

wages, fewer benefits, and less predictable, though sometimes more flexible, schedules.

Women are now contributors and/or providers in a majority of Tennessee households and it is crucial that they are

able to compete fairly for high-paying jobs with the fewest additional barriers.

These same barriers are also inefficient for businesses, who would benefit from a larger, more competitive labor pool

and greater diversity.

Individuals who exhibit relatively high implicit gender bias are more likely to favor men in decision-making and are

least able to detect when a female candidate is the better alternative. In one study, nine of ten mistakes favored men.

Measuring Implicit Gender Bias Unlike explicit gender bias, which describes intention-

al and obvious discrimination, implicit bias is difficult

to detect and measure in the real world. As an

unconscious, automatic function of the brain, its

impact on decision-making can be subtle but devas-

tating to groups like women, for whom the traditional

caregiver stereotype can be damaging in the work-

force.

While we lack an ethical way of measuring the effect

of bias in hiring in the real world—it would be both

difficult and inappropriate to manipulate hiring

processes in a way that could elicit measurable

results—scientists have consistently revealed its

influence in research settings (examples to follow),

STATISTICS

Workforce bias (in general, not simply at the point

of hire) is estimated to account for as much as 5%

to 10% of the difference in median income for full-

time, year-round workers (approximately $2,000 to

$5,000).

In 2013, women held 36% of managerial jobs,

owned a part in 26% of businesses.

Why This Matters Hiring may be the most economically significant

process that occurs in the workforce, and research

reveals how implicit gender bias can create disad-

vantages for women seeking employment in leader-

ship roles and in male-gendered fields. This bias is an

inefficiency that hurts women and families as well as

businesses because it obscures optimal decision-

making and arbitrarily limits employers’ access to

potential candidates. Building Tennessee’s capacity

to connect the right workers to the right jobs, and

increasing household providers’ access to high-

paying fields must be a top priority. As working

women encounter fewer barriers to entry in the

workforce, Tennessee’s businesses and families will

benefit.

Gender Bias in

Hiring & Wages


21

Hiring & Wages

and the disadvantages it imposes on women are

further evident in the large-scale divides between

men and women by industry, wage, and role.

In the instance of wage, for example, bias has been

determined to directly cause one-quarter or more of

the difference in median full-time wages between

sexes. Most efforts to control for other influential

variables like differing education, experience, and

parental status reveal a remaining disparity between

5% to 10% (approximately $2,000 to $5,000) which

experts believe is the result of bias in hiring, promo-

tion, and other economically significant processes

(Greszler & Sherk, 2014; Wall & Reed, 2001).

Notably, this is a measure of earnings by full-time,

year-round workers, and does not address the

disparity in compensation between those with single

full-time jobs and those with one or more part-time

jobs who would consider themselves unwillingly

underemployed. As is discussed next, this is an

important distinction because women are vastly more

likely to work in fields where part-time work is

common, and are twice as likely as men to hold

multiple part-time jobs (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis-

tics). It should also be noted that, while variables like

education and experience level may not be directly

related to bias in hiring, they can be influenced by

gender bias earlier in one’s life. Curriculum develop-

ment, education and recruitment policies, promotion

trends, and social expectations for men and women

can play a factor in whether a candidate has the traits

and pervious experience desired at the point of hire.

Gender Segregation by Industry Automatic expectations that men are independent,

competent, and result-oriented are widespread in our

culture and have been shown to grant an advantage

to male candidates in many hiring situations (Koch,

Konigorski, & Sieverding, 2014). Women, in contrast,

are presumed to be more communal, nurturing, and

emotional—traits that are rarely prioritized and

sometimes stigmatized by prospective employers

(Ellemers, 2014). These assumptions tend to happen

implicitly (unconsciously and without intent) and can

distort the way individuals perceive a candidate’s

potential throughout the interview process. Indeed,

some candidates can be disadvantaged even before

making contact with an employer as evaluators

consider the “type” of person their company should

hire. Specifically, gender frames through which

perceivers intuitively consider candidates have been

shown to tilt the outcome of hiring, wage, and other

economically significant decisions to the disadvantage

of women (Ridgeway, 2009).

These findings are most common in male-gendered

industries and roles (those stereotypically associated

with male workers and traits), which tend to be

higher-paying than traditionally female-gendered

ones. Major examples include science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (the STEM fields), as

well as law, manufacturing, transportation, logistics,

Estimated Impact of Bias in the Gender Wage Gap

Figure 04: Gender bias is believed to be directly responsible for

approximately 5% to 10% of the total gender wage gap (Greszler &

Sherk, 2014; Wall & Reed, 2001).


22

Hiring & Wages

and construction. In Tennessee, men make up the

majority of these fields, and even in industries like

medicine, education, and finance, where women

outnumber men, male median incomes are between

15% and 86% greater than female median incomes

because men tend to hold more lucrative positions

and specializations (e.g. doctor vs nurse, or manager

vs administrative support) (U.S. Census; Jobs4tn.gov).

Even setting aside gender

-divergent career

trajectories within

specific industries (see:

Work Attribution &

Evaluation and The Wage

Gap for more), gender

segregation between

industries remains

incredibly impactful. Working women tend to be

concentrated in fields like food service, hospitality,

and retail, where compensation is relatively low, work

schedules can be both demanding and unpredictable,

and part-time employment is very common. Many

factors have contributed to this pattern, but deeply

engrained assumptions that certain types of work are

gendered as either male or female—or that all work is

male-gendered—appear to be a root cause.

Implicit Gender Bias in Hiring In roles and industries where work is male-gendered,

bias is most pronounced and can permeate the entire

hiring process.

In a 2012 Yale University study (Moss-Racusin, 2012),

when science faculty members were asked to choose

between virtually identical paper resumes of male

and female candidates for a scientific lab manager

position, participants perceived female candidates as

less competent (though more socially likeable), based

on gender alone. Per-

ceived competence

translated into more

concrete penalties, too, as

participating faculty also

viewed male candidates

as more hirable, ex-

pressed willingness to

mentor them more often,

and supported higher starting wages for them than

for female candidates ($30,238 for men; $26,507 for

women).

As has been observed in most research dealing with

implicit gender bias, the gender of the observer did

not impact their preferences; both men and women

favored the male candidates in all three measures

(Moss-Racusin, 2012).

Similarly, in a 2013 experiment (Reuben, 2013) where

participants were asked to choose a male or female

partner to perform simple math-related activities,

both men and women were twice as likely to select a

male candidate over a comparably qualified female,

based on knowledge of their physical characteristics

alone (Reuben, 2013). This occurred despite the fact

that men and women are proven to exhibit little or no

biological differences in math and science aptitude,

particularly as educational curricula have grown less

gendered (Koch, Konigorski, & Sieverding, 2014). This

same study was then repeated with several additional

variables to measure the success of participants’

choices, and to test whether or not their decisions

would change when they were provided with infor-

mation about past candidate performance, and when

...participating faculty also viewed

male candidates as more hirable,

expressed willingness to mentor

them more often, and supported

higher starting wages for them

than for female candidates.


23

candidates had a chance to promote their own

abilities in person.

In the later rounds, more information meant a more

level playing field. Participants were generally less

likely to favor men over women when candidates

reported their own abilities, and were least likely to

do so when experimenters provided impartial,

objective information to participants about each

candidate’s previous performance in similar math

activities. This additional layer of study reveals a

critical trend in implicit gender bias—as observations

are brought out of unconscious thought and into

more cognitively busy processes, implicit bias dimin-

ishes in favor of more logical and optimal considera-

tion. For many participants, this not only meant a

more even distribution of male and female selections,

but also a higher rate of choosing the superior

candidate—the one who later performed the activi-

ties with the highest accuracy. However, for some

participants whose implicit gender bias was measura-

bly stronger (as detected by an Implicit Association

Test), additional information was not as helpful.

Members of this group were not only most likely to

hire men over women based on gender alone; they

were also least likely to update their opinions based

on objective information, and were considerably less

capable of filtering out overestimations (boasting)

provided by several male candidates who later

underperformed relative to rival candidates and failed

to meet their own estimates. When candidates were

able to promote themselves and employers made the

wrong choice, they chose lower-performing men in 9

of 10 mistakes (Reuben, 2013).

As experimenters put it, “the same stereotype that

made employers discriminate against women on the

basis of incorrect belief in the first place prevented

them from filtering candidates’ self-reported infor-

mation optimally. The ability to update an opinion

with new information after a decision has been made

was lowest for those with high bias against women,

which often resulted in poor decisions (Reuben,

2013).” These results offer important insight into how

gender can influence early assumptions made upon

seeing a resume and cloud the use of additional

information gained during a successive interview—to

the disadvantage of both women and employers.

Hiring & Wages


24

Key Findings:

Negotiation is a tool individuals can use to increase their compensation, shape their responsibilities, and pursue pro-

motion, but men are significantly more likely to be successful in negotiation than women.

Research indicates that women are less likely than men to initiate negotiation, and are less aggressive when doing

so, in part because they experience greater anxiety, feel less control over their surroundings than men, and are raised

to exhibit traits that conflict with society’s current masculine view of negotiation.

Women tend to be viewed as unskilled negotiators with a poor ability to detect manipulation, which can encourage

their counterparts to lower ethical standards, be more coercive, and even deceitful.

When women do negotiate assertively, they can encounter social penalties (backlash) for betraying gender stereo-

types of modesty and communal behavior. They are seen by both men and women as less likeable and less attractive

to work with. This double standard is not encountered by men, who are expected to be assertive both socially and

professionally.

Situational features like ambiguity and priming can greatly influence the activation and severity of gender stereotypes.

Because of this, they appear to hold more influence over outcomes than internal features like female personality traits

or anxiety.

Why This Matters Given the historic importance of negotiation as a

means to secure greater resources and influence, it is

easy to imagine how this practice has become

infused with characteristics typical of history’s chief

economic agents: men. Conversely, it is no surprise

that generations of men, as presumed breadwinners,

leaders, and heads of household, have been raised to

reflect the traits imbedded in negotiation. However,

men now comprise only a slim majority (53%) of

Tennessee’s non-household workforce, and as the

percentage of economic activity performed by

women rises, so too does the risk of inefficiency when

negotiation dissuades certain workers from pursuing

an ideal path, acts as a barrier to promotion or hire,

or results in under-incentivized employees. Addition-

ally, by reassessing both our views of negotiation and

women’s role in it, we can reach more efficient

outcomes more often.

Lower Success Rates for Women Negotiation is an incredibly complex process in which

subtle variables like the personalities and expecta-

tions of participants interact with more overt charac-

teristics like the structure and goals of the interaction

itself to shape an outcome. The true breadth and

diversity of factors that influence negotiation are

evident in the dozens of methodologies and findings

produced by modern research on this topic. Helpfully,

several common themes emerge in the data to offer

insight into the impact of gender on negotiation.

In 2005 Laura Kray and Leigh Thompson of the Haas

School of Business at UC Berkeley performed an

exhaustive meta-analysis of publications studying

gender in negotiation (including wage negotiation and

bargaining between opposing interests). In their work

they analyzed dozens of related reports and conclud-

ed from the available data that, “under baseline

conditions, men outperform women in terms of

Gender Bias in

Negotiation


25

economic measures of success.” Kray and Thompson

also threaded together a consensus view among

researchers that “at a basic level, gender stereotypes

play a role in how focal negotiators behave, how their

partners expect them to behave, and how focal

negotiators interact with the environment” (Kray &

Thompson, 2005). Observations of this disparity

abound in research and the following examples from

the body of work they reviewed offer a valuable

introduction:

Women were more trustworthy and pursued

others’ interests (Buchan, Croson, & Solnick,

2004);

Women were less competitive and favored

cooperative choices (Caldwell, 1976);

Women offered up more resources than men,

especially to other men (Solnick, 2001);

Women achieved numerically worse deals

(Ayres & Siegelman, 1995);

Women showed less motivation to show their

worth in negotiation, made weaker opening

offers, and expressed lesser entitlement to earn

more (Barron, 2003);

Women set lower goals than men and per-

formed worse when information was scarce

(Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2004);

Just as important as the disparity in success at the

negotiation table is the female reluctance to even

initiate the process. The overall frequency of wage

negotiation varies throughout research and across the

workforce, with estimates of its likelihood ranging

broadly between 10% and 50%, depending on

circumstances (H. R. Bowles et al., 2007; CareerBuild-

er, 2013), but women are consistently less likely to

initiate negation than men. Again, the rate varies

widely, but some experimental situations report men

negotiating up to ten times as often as women (Small

et al., 2007). This is a critical problem because

negotiation can increase wages earned by thousands

of dollars annually (Marks & Harold, 2009), and can

have a compounding positive impact in the tens or

hundreds of thousands over the span of a career, as

raises are often percentage-based and grow in scale

from an initial offer.

How Feminine Socialization Can

Undercut Negotiation In part, researchers believe the gender divergence in

both performance and initiation stems from charac-

Negitiation

The Compounding Effect of a Wage Gap Over 40 Years

Figure 05: Assuming growth of 3% annually, the difference in annual earnings between a starting wage of $35,000 and $40,000

grows to nearly $16,000 in year 40, and the gap in lifetime earnings totals $377,000.

Year 40 Year 20 Year 1

An

nu

al S

alar

y


26

teristics that women develop while growing up. Some

cite indications that women have lower compensation

expectations than men (Major, McFarlin, & Gagnon,

1984), are less likely than men to feel influential over

their circumstances, and are thus less likely to view a

job offer as negotiable and more likely to view it as a

finite “price on an item in a store” (Babcock &

Laschever, 2003). Women are also shown to feel a

greater degree of anxiety than men when considering

the prospect of negotiation, even when they know it

is a viable option. This anxiety and unwillingness to

negotiate is discussed by Small, et al. (2007) as a

reflection of the low power status of women. In their

work, Small et al. revealed a significant difference

between genders in anxiety and reluctance to initiate

negotiation (men were more than ten times as likely

to negotiate in one round of the study), but discov-

ered that self-reported female anxiety was not

present when the word “negotiation” was replaced

with “ask,” or when participants were asked immedi-

ately prior to the experiment to describe a past

situation in which they exercised power over some-

one else.

These findings support the assertion that a woman’s

perceived lack of power over their environment can

diminish their actual ability to influence it, and that

methods of empowerment can counteract this view.

The results also connect the failure to initiate negotia-

tion with the lower status of women, who were much

more comfortable with asking for more money than

negotiating for it. Asking “conveys a weaker stance

and is considered a linguistic gesture of politeness… in

which speakers acknowledge restraint to minimize

imposing on others, and is particularly important for

low-power individuals (Small et al., 2007).” This is

consistent with research showing that women are

least comfortable with negotiation when their

evaluator is male (H. R. Bowles et al., 2007), as men

typically hold higher economic and social status.

Similarly, most women are raised to display “warm”

traits like modesty, submissiveness, and communality,

which are not highly valued in the workforce and are

not typically conducive to negotiation (Kray & Thomp-

son, 2005). In fact, research on the subject has

revealed that even when women do display male-

gendered traits, they may still fall short in the specific

traits most closely affiliated with successful initiation

and negotiation as they are typically practiced today.

In a University of Texas study (Spence & Helmreich,

2000) where participants of both sexes were present-

ed with a list of traits and asked to select those with

which they identified, men and women chose tradi-

tionally masculine traits in fairly even numbers, but

differed significantly in which masculine traits they

selected. Women were likely to identify with the

traits: active, independent, and self-expressive, but

were much less likely than men to identify with the

traits: forceful, competitive, and in charge (Spence &

Buckner, 2000). As observed by fellow researchers

exploring the tendency of participants to initiate

negotiation (H. R. Bowles et al., 2007), this revealed

an important division among traditionally “male”

traits between those associated with competence and

those related to dominance (Rudman & Glick, 2001).

Specifically, women identified much more frequently

with the former than the latter, (and were also much

more likely than men to identify with traits tradition-

ally viewed as feminine).

It appears, then, that one contributor to the observed

gender disparity in negotiation is internal to women.

That is, some women do not initiate negotiation as

often as men or encounter the same rate of success

because doing so calls for “dominant” behaviors that

are not typically developed. This is an important

determination because women (and those raising

...Women are less likely than men

to feel influential over their

circumstances, and are thus less

likely to view a job offer as

negotiable...

Negotiation


27

future generations of women) can work to adjust

behaviors and foster a female comfort with negotia-

tion; however, female behavior and comfort are not

the only contributors to this disparity. A growing body

of research suggests that personality traits are not the

primary gender-related determents of success, but

rather the differential treatment of men and women

and the consistency with which we treat negotiation

as male-gendered.

To get a fuller view of the disadvantages women face

when navigating negotiation we need to look outward

to the social context and biases of the situation, the

type and amount of information available during

negotiation, and how these elements presently stack

the deck against female negotiators.

Unfemininity and the Risk of Social

“Backlash”

As was discussed in the previous section on Impres-

sion-Management, women who behave confidently

and assertively risk being penalized socially (Koch,

Konigorski, & Sieverding, 2014). This risk applies to

negotiation as well, where initiation and the aggres-

sive pursuit of greater resources conflicts with the

female prescription of modesty and expectations of

lower status. In a 2007 study, Bowles, Babcock, and

Lai measured evaluators’ responses to male and

female candidates who initiated negotiation. In it,

candidates of both genders were penalized to some

degree (viewed as less nice and more demanding),

but negative responses to female negotiators were

between two and five times as strong, depending on

the circumstances of each round. As is the case in

other economically significant processes, the percep-

tion of demandingness was shown to significantly

lessen the evaluators’ willingness to work with a

female candidate, even when the evaluator was also

female.

In total, “attempting to negotiate for higher compen-

sation had no effect on men’s willingness to work

with men, but it had a significantly negative effect on

men’s willingness to work with women. Women

penalized men and women equally for attempting to

negotiate” (H. R. Bowles et al., 2007).

Importantly, a later round of the study showed that

female participants anticipated backlash from men,

but did not expect to receive it from female evalua-

tors, and were naively less cautious about negotiating

with them. This revealed an important underestima-

tion of the female defense of female modesty, which

both workers and employers must bear in mind.

Backlash is not only a measurable and damaging

response exhibited by both men and women, it is also

often a foreseeable risk that may act as an additional

deterrent to initiation for women (Amanatullah &

Morris, 2010). Broadly supported in research, back-

lash creates a double standard for women, who must

be both likeable and aggressive if they are to achieve

higher wages, and introduces an important caveat

into the popular contemporary advice that women

take initiative and “Lean In” (Sandberg, 2013). As with

impression-management in general, negotiation is a

balancing act for women. Choosing to negotiate, as

opposed to passively accepting offers, may promote

greater access to resources over the span of a career,

but women who are able to self-monitor and apply

both tactics at the right times will likely benefit most

(O’Neill, 2011).

Perceived Competence, Deceit, and

Stereotype Threat So far, we have explored how women are often

socialized to embody traits and perspectives that are

unconducive to negotiation, and how both men and

women tend to respond negatively to female negotia-

tors by judging them too demanding and undesirable

to work with. In addition to these effects, common

gender stereotypes assume that women are less

competent negotiators, which has even been shown

to influence how honestly others approach negoti-

ating with women.

Negotiation


28

Deceit

A recent study by Kray, Kennedy, & Van Zant (2014)

reinforces the understanding that women are viewed

as less savvy and also more polite negotiators, with

disturbing results. In their 2014 analysis of face-to-

face negotiations by MBA students, neither women

nor men were more likely to lie than the other, but

women were much more likely to be lied to (22%)

than men (5%). In this data set, female negotiators

were not only more likely to be mislead by the other

negotiator, they were three times as likely to be

blatantly lied to. As experimenters put it: “the gender

bias in deception appears driven by a greater propen-

sity to tell women blatant lies in a situation in which

men tend to be told the truth.”

Additional rounds of study revealed the cause:

women were more likely to be misled because they

were viewed by both men and other women as poorly

equipped to detect dishonesty. As a result, their

counterparts were more likely to lower ethical

standards and use deception.

As predicted by experimenters, this led to a higher

number of bad deals for women; agreements were

12% more likely to be reached when women—rather

than men—were in a role that was vulnerable to

deceit. (In this scenario, buyers and sellers had

different desires for the use of a parcel of land and

buyers could lie about their intended use to secure a

deal.)

It is not clear from this study that women are actually

more easily misled than men, but the results do

indicate that this perception is enough to encourage

others to employ unethical behaviors, putting women

at a unique disadvantage. While this finding speaks

specifically to negotiating a sale as opposed to a

salary, it is unsettling to consider how lower ethical

standards might affect women’s access to greater

resources in the workforce.

Situational Variables: Ambiguity

and Stereotype Priming/Threat Improving the way we think of women in the context

of work is a critical component of realigning their

economic opportunities with their economic responsi-

bilities as providers. Unfortunately, because stereo-

typical gender assumptions are formed and rein-

forced in society at large, gains in the social con-

sciousness may come too slowly to help women

already in the workforce today. Thankfully, there

remain multiple features of negotiation (and other

economically significant processes) that can be

augmented to minimize the impact of gender bias

immediately. Specifically, subtle variations in the

structure of a negotiation, the information available

to participants, and the way in which gender stereo-

types are—or are not—“primed” beforehand can

have a dramatic impact on the outcome. These

observations can be put to valuable use by workers,

employers, and policymakers as they work to pro-

mote or pursue economic success.

“Attempting to negotiate for

higher compensation had no effect

on men’s willingness to work with

men, but it had a significantly

negative effect on men’s

willingness to work with women.”

Negotiation


29

Information and Ambiguity

Perhaps because of the gender expectations dis-

cussed previously in this section, female negotiators

tend to enter the process with more modest expecta-

tions than men and often secure less favorable

results. Recent research on the topic suggests that the

gender variance is strongest in expectations (target

prices), opening bids, and outcomes when ambiguity

is also high, but narrows when critical information is

available to guide women

through a less modest

approach.

In simulated negotiations

over halogen headlights,

Bowles, Babcock, and

McGinn (2004) tested the

impact that information

can have on purchasers’ bargaining strategies. There

were two mixed-gender two groups studied: both

were instructed to get a price below $35 per unit, but

the second group was also encouraged to negotiate

down to a much lower rate of $15 per unit. Experi-

menters performed surveys before and after the

negotiations to measure the experience of partici-

pants.

In the first group, “male buyers entered the negotia-

tion expecting to pay 10% less and to offer 19% less

than did female buyers. Consistent with expectations,

male buyers walked out of the negotiation paying

27% less than did female buyers (Bowles, Babcock, &

McGinn, 2004).” This result was largely in line with

gender assumptions about negotiation, but the

second group’s outcomes were not.

The second group, for whom the only difference was

the additional $15 price target, reported “no signifi-

cant sex differences in target prices, intended first

offers, or negotiated outcomes.” In other words, the

more aggressive posture displayed in male negotia-

tors appears to have been simulated in women by

providing an aggressive target. By diminishing the

ambiguity built into bargaining, the added price target

narrowed the space in which women could feel the

desire or need to be reserved. Through this simple

change, female negotiators were empowered to

eliminate the 10% difference in expected pay, the

19% difference in opening offers, and the 27% gap in

outcomes (Bowles, Babcock, & McMinn, 2004).

These findings are not only relevant to women

engaged in bargaining; the revelation that knowing

simple information like a

price or wage target can

sometimes overcome

gender disparities

highlights the im-

portance for women to

be well-informed about a

prospective job’s pay

range, and provides

insight into what employers might do to provide an

equal playing field for applicants.

A more direct example of this comes from the same

study, where the starting salaries of over 500 MBA

graduates were analyzed. After controlling for dozens

of salary predictors, including industry, role, location,

and tasks, male salaries outpaced female salaries by

an average of 5% ($5,941) and up to 10%. Important-

ly, the gap was most narrow among those who chose

fields related to their business degree, for which they

were likely to have the best understanding of an

acceptable starting pay range (low ambiguity). For

those who took jobs outside of their earlier discipline

(e.g. health and human services), the gap between

genders was largest. Graduates who chose these

more foreign fields were likely to encounter greater

ambiguity when navigating negotiation, and success

in this process was determined to influence the larger

gap between genders. Adding to the bad news,

women were not only subject to a larger pay gap in

the high-ambiguity fields, they were also more likely

than men to enter them. This may be a reflection of

how women are deterred from entering male-

gendered fields like business and investment, even

Negotiation

“The gender bias in deception

appears driven by a greater

propensity to tell women blatant

lies in a situation in which men

tend to be told the truth.”


30

when they are educated to pursue them (Bowles,

Babcock, & McGinn, 2004).

Stereotype Priming

Actionable information like a price target is not the

only structural feature of negotiation that can

manipulate the impact of gender. The way we

envision negotiation and which traits produce results

is also critically influential, and appears to be much

more malleable than one might expect. One way to

change how we approach negotiation is through a

process called “priming.” Priming involves “activating

particular representations or associations in memory

just before carrying out an action or task (Psychology

Today).” By priming participants of one gender or the

other to feel empowered, or to view traits they

embody as useful immediately prior to a negotiation,

we can influence the outcome substantially.

A set of experiments in 2002 (Kray, Galinsky, &

Thompson) primed male and female candidates to

consider gender-neutral, male-, or female-gendered

traits as diagnostic of un/successful negotiation, and

found that when female traits (verbal and listening

skills, emotional insight) were promoted or male traits

(assertiveness, self-interest, rationality) were down-

played in advance of negotiation, women not only

expected to fair better, they also achieved greater

results than their male counterparts. As expected,

men outperformed women when female traits were

criticized. Importantly, men also prevailed when

gender-neutral traits (well-prepared, humorous, open

-minded) were promoted (Kray, Galinsky,

&Thompson, 2002)—offering insight into the default

disadvantage of women in negotiation today.

This study further emphasizes how external forces are

important contributors to negotiation outcomes, and

reveals what may be a surprising degree of fluidity in

what can be viewed as contributing to success.

Employers and policymakers may be encouraged by

the way in which a very simple manipulation was

sufficient to overturn the effects of gender in these

experiments.

Stereotype Threat

One of the specific ways by which perceptions of poor

female performance are understood to impact

outcomes is by creating disruptive anxiety in women

(or other categories of person “lacking fit”) who are

performing a task that they are broadly understood to

be deficient in. Examples of this phenomenon include

poor female performance in difficult math tests

despite comparable competency (Spencer, Steele,

Quinn, 1999), and impairment of female “shop talk”

and work satisfaction relative to men in STEM fields

despite comparable experience and professional

relevance (Holleran, Whitehead, Schmader, & Mehl,

2010).

In the previously referenced study by Kray, Galinsky,

& Thompson, stereotype threat was activated either

for men or women when traits they were typically

associated with were downplayed, and in each case,

those who most embodied the weaker traits set lower

goals for themselves and achieved worse results. The

effect, whether conscious or subconscious, amounts

to: “I am a woman, [I am told that] women do not

have the traits or skills needed to be successful

negotiators.”

An important caveat to this interpretation is offered

by Kray and Thompson (2005), who identify a trend in

research suggesting that “women are better off to the

extent that they are aware that a negative stereotype

exists about their ability” and treat processes like

negotiation as a challenge through which to disprove

the stereotype.

Negotiation


31

Key Findings:

The way we view the work of others, and the extent to which we credit them with success, is not perfectly objective; it

can be influenced by situations and pre-existing stereotypes.

For women in mixed-gender team environments, stereotypes that assume (or prefer) they wield low technical compe-

tence and hedge toward submissiveness can lead observers (and even women themselves) to devalue their contribu-

tion to successes and attribute it to nearby men, for whom success is an easier fit according to stereotype. This pro-

cess is called attributional rationalization.

This is especially true when information is not available to draw a direct connection between individuals and out-

comes, as is often the case in a team project. However, this disparity can be balanced out by specific information

validating female performance, such as clear recognition from a supervisor, a project structure that involves silo-ed

work for which individuals are each responsible, and highly flattering evidence of past performance.

Bias is also evident in performance evaluations, where research points to women being scored on warmth more than

competence, benefitting less from observed competence than men, and being punished more for low observed

warmth.

In performance evaluations with both a narrative and number scoring component, women have been shown to re-

ceive equal or greater praise than men while still receiving lower numerical scores—possibly because narratives are

more cognitively demanding while numerical scores are inherently more implicit and more open to gender bias.

Lastly, research indicates that successful reviews translate into raises and promotions most often for white men, but

that success is less likely to result in a tangible reward for women and minorities.

No Benefit of the Doubt Workforce bias doesn’t end at the storefront or the

negotiation table, where a lack of familiarity can

produce particularly biased results. Even as colleagues

get to know one another and observe their respective

strengths and skills, gender stereotypes and ambigui-

ty can still obscure perceptions in damaging ways. As

one researcher put it, “People are not always optimal

social information processors (Krieger, 2004).”

Situations and pre-existing stereotypes can impact the

way we digest the raw data we take-in and this can

result in unfair assessments of others’ work. Of

particular importance to the office dynamic are

gender assumptions (and preferences) about low

Why This Matters For any workforce based on incentives and merit, it is

a fundamental assumption that success can be seen,

rewarded, and elevated. Unfortunately, research

reveals that women (unlike men) rarely get the

benefit of the doubt, and must supply or benefit from

highly specific information that validates their

contribution to successful work. This undoubtedly

promotes poorer peer opinions, artificially weaker

performance reviews, and decreased access to

advancement, raises, and influence. Performance

evaluations, in particular, must be performed using

objective methods that can promote efficiency.

Gender Bias in

Work Attribution & Evaluation


32

female technical competence and submissiveness,

which can result in lopsided performance reviews and

inaccurate assessments of female contributions to

teamwork, particularly when ambiguity is high.

Attributional Rationalization

Negative stereotype-based expectations impact how

women are regarded and how their work is evaluated

– particularly when the work is male gendered,

including in management roles. In these settings,

women are not only endangered by the risk that their

work will be seen as being of lesser quality, but also

that successes may be attributed to some other

influence like a teammate or workplace policy. This

latter result is known as “attributional rationalization”

and is particularly relevant to women working in

mixed-gender teams (Heilman & Haynes, 2005).

A 2005 study performed at New York University

(Heilman & Haynes, 2005), provides excellent insight

into how attributional rationalization works and what

steps can be taken to avoid it. In the study, partici-

pants were asked to assess the contributions of one

member out of a mixed-gender duo who had success-

fully collaborated on a male-gendered task: creating

an investment portfolio (first working separately and

then combining work product).

Each participant was asked to review one of two near-

identical project review documents; they differed only

in that half were titled “Individual Assessment Form”

and the other half “Group Assessment Form.”

Participants were then asked to judge the likely (a)

competence, (b) influence on task outcome, and (c)

leadership shown by the either the male or female

collaborator, with either a group or individual form.

For those participants furnished with an “Individual

Assessment Form” there was no statistical distinction

between the presumed competence, influence, or

leadership of male and female collaborators. Howev-

er, when a “Group Assessment Form” was provided it

was no longer irrefutable that women made meaning-

ful contributions. With this ambiguity added, partici-

pants gave men the benefit of the doubt, but not

women. Without a direct, objective validation of their

work, women were judged to be less competent, less

influential, and less likely to have taken on a leader-

ship role than men.

Successive rounds performed similar experiments

with similar results. In the same way that generic or

specific confirmation of success could enable or

eliminate attributional rationalization, respectively, so

too could variations in information about task

assignments and past performance. Specifically, when

a successful project (success was indicated by a group

assessment form for all participants in the follow-up

rounds) was structured so that each teammate would

complete their own portion of the project individual-

ly, male and female collaborators received compara-

ble scores in competence, involvement, and influ-

ence. When the task was described as collaborative

throughout, men were judged significantly higher in

all three measures.

The pattern of assuming success for men and

doubting it in women was exposed in greater detail in

the past performance experiment. In this round

participants had to judge the collaborators’ contribu-

tions to a successful project based on identical

information with the exception that some were

described as being at the top 25% or top 2% perform-

er among their peers. As with the other conditions,

both genders were judged comparably when given a

specific 2% designation, but among those with a 25%,

women received lower ratings than men and their

female peers in the 2%. In fact, women with 25%

designations were treated comparably to women in a

control group for whom there was no evidence of

past performance given at all. Perhaps surprisingly,

judgements of men were similarly high whether they

were designated in the top 2%, 25%, or not rated at

all.

Throughout the study, men were not only judged

more highly than women in all but the most specific

conditions, they were also given the benefit of the

doubt that they were positive actors in conditions

with vague or no information. Meanwhile, women



33

relied on very specific and very high indicators of past

performance to be judged more positively. When

ambiguity was present about the source of success,

“women’s performance [had to] be at the top 20th

percentile, and in many cases in the top 10th percen-

tile to be viewed on par with the average man’s

performance” (Heilman & Haynes, 2005).

As with most other expressions of bias discussed in

this document, male and female observers showed

the same favor toward men and bestowed the same

doubts upon women. This further supports the

conclusion that there is something more complicated

than male sexism at work in these situations. Rather,

these are the results of universally held gender

stereotypes that promote unintentional, implicit

assumptions of the least of women.

Self-Doubt

Unfortunately, this perception is not only shared by

observers; women have also been shown to belittle

their own contributions to successful multi-sex teams

when explicit evidence of achievement is not availa-

ble.

In a follow-up to their 2005 study that utilized similar

variables like group and independent evaluation

forms, Haynes and Heilman (2013) found that women

were considerably more likely than men to downplay

their own contribution to a male-gendered task when

individual feedback and validation was not offered.

This occurred despite the fact that the project was

performed remotely and participants never met their

partner—in fact the partners weren’t even real.

Devaluation was less likely to occur when specific

validating information was available. Specifically,

when women received individual confirmation of

their good work (as opposed to group validation),

were shown to have performed well in a previous and

similar task (past performance), or when the task was

structured so that they were the only one possibly

responsible for a portion of the success, they were

less likely to discount their involvement. In contrast,

men behaved with higher relative confidence regard-

less of the variables in play.

High ambiguity was not the only condition necessary

for women to doubt their contribution; they also

needed a suitable peer to overvalue, someone for

whom success was expected: a man. When women

were paired with other women they tended to

identify themselves as making the greater contribu-

tion and being the better performer. When women

were paired with men, however, they perceived their

contribution as relatively smaller and identified men

as the better performers 60% of the time, as opposed

to female teammates, who they selected approxi-

mately 12% of the time. For comparison, when

individual feedback was made available the act of

devaluing was significantly less common and some-

what reversed. In this less ambiguous condition, 17%

of women identified female partners as the better

performer, and fewer than 5% chose a male partner

over themselves. Men rarely identified a female

partner as the better performer; doing so only once

for every four times a woman chose a male partner

(Haynes & Heilman, 2013).

These figures should not be taken as exact predictors

of behavior, but are included here to highlight the

significant gap in possible outcomes as well as the

palliative impact of self-validating information.

The growing body of evidence that men and women

both unintentionally devalue female contributions

(even their own) to male-gendered work is of serious

concern because this inaccuracy likely translates to

poor peer opinion, artificially weaker performance


When ambiguity was present

about the source of success,

“women’s performance had to be

at the top 20th percentile, and in

many cases in the top 10th

percentile to be viewed on par

with the average man’s

performance.”


34

reviews, and a lesser potential for female advance-

ment in high-status, high-paying jobs.

Performance Evaluation

The presence of gender bias in performance evalua-

tions is of particular importance to this document

because they are central to advancement policies and

are also highly malleable products (as opposed to

socially derived stereotypes) that can be shaped to

minimize the influence of gender bias in the short

term. Presently, positive performance reviews are

much more likely to lead to promotions for white men

than for women or members of ethnic and racial

minorities (Koch, Konigorski, & Sieverding, 2014), but

emerging evidence about bias in the process may

provide solutions that will help narrow the gap

between good work, high praise, and commensurate

rewards.

A 2012 analysis (Biernat et al., 2012) of performance

evaluations in a major law firm explored the effects of

gender and confirmed that male and female employ-

ees were rated with emphasis on different traits;

received comparable narrative praise but divergent

numerical scores; and that men were ultimately more

likely to receive high scores and were three times as

likely to be identified as potential partner material.

In these evaluations—which were only seen by

partners, not the evaluated attorneys—subjects were

described in a written narrative assessment that

supported rankings by category on 5-point numerical

scales. Analysis showed that men and women re-

ceived similarly positive praise in the written compo-

nent, but women received consistently lower numeri-

cal ratings. In fact, the use of a high volume of

positive performance words was actually bad for

women (but good for men) in terms of corresponding

number ratings. The difference between success rates

in the two components was partially explained by the

fact that evaluators rewarded different traits in each

gender but prized the male-gendered trait most.

Specifically, men were evaluated with an emphasis on

technical competence while women were judged with

an emphasis on interpersonal warmth. As Figure 06

shows, when narratives were compared to 5-point

rankings, competence tended to correspond to

greater scores than warmth for both genders, but

men were more likely than women to be rewarded

for competence while women were more likely than

men to be punished for low warmth. In researchers’

own words, “while both men and women may have


Differences by Gender in Numerical Ratings Relative to Narrative Mentions of Competence and Warmth

Figure 06: The scores of men and women were more closely linked to competence and warmth, respectively; men were rewarded

most for high competence, and women were punished most for low warmth (Biernart et al., 2012).

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

Nu

mer

ical

Rati

ng

Nu

mer

ical

Rati

ng

Low Technical Competence | High Technical Competence Low Interpersonal Warmth | High Interpersonal Warmth

Men

Men

Women

Women

Technical Competence Interpersonal Warmth


35

been held to stereotyped expectations, women

particularly suffered when they did not meet expecta-

tions, and men gained when they did,” (Biernat et al.,

2012). This was additionally harmful to women

because they were expected to cater to stereotypical

expectations in a trait (warmth/likeability) that is

generally less likely than competence to promote

professional success in general (Ellemers, 2014), and

high numerical rankings in particular (Biernat et al.,

2012).

While significant, this observation did not fully explain

the differences in outcomes by gender. That women

were generally praised as highly as men but did not

receive comparably high 5-point ratings might be

explained by the fact that women were recognized for

warmth, not competence; however, even being

mentioned as a potential future partner mattered less

in numerical ratings for women than for men. To

explain this result, Biernat et al. point to a difference

in the cognitive busy-ness of the two evaluation

components, suggesting that implicit gender bias was

more likely to be present in the numerical scoring

component, which is a more ambiguous, “gut in-

stinct” measurement, than in the narrative compo-

nent, which is more detailed and deliberate—where

implicit bias is proven to be less influential.

The findings in this example are not uncommon and

the presence of ambiguity is consistently shown to

fuel gendered outcomes (Heilman & Haynes, 2005).

Still more reveal that women are progressively less

likely to be promoted as one looks up the corporate

or public ladder, where male-gendered traits like

technical competence and agency appear to be most

treasured and female success can, itself, be rejected

(see: Leadership for more). This phenomenon is

popularly referred to as the “glass ceiling effect.”

Interestingly, a recent study of narrative evaluations

that were shared with employees revealed a different,

but not conflicting trend. In nearly 250 reviews

collected from 28 different tech companies of varying

sizes, it was determined that women (88%) were

more likely than men (59%) to receive criticism in

their evaluation, and were significantly more likely to

receive criticism that was not constructive or helpful.

In fact, of the reviews with criticism, all but two male

reviews were constructive (less than 3%), while 75%

of the 94 female reviews had negative feedback

without constructive commentary. The study also

found that negative personality criticisms like “watch

your tone! Step back! Stop being so judgmental!”

were extremely common for women but almost

nonexistent for men (Snyder, 2014).

From these examples, we see how both praise and

criticism can be used in ways that are more harmful

to women than men. Both also offer insights into

different fields (law and tech), with the latter offering

a sample of some of the more abrasive treatment

that women encounter in the workforce.

Poor self-evaluations and harsh or undeservedly

lackluster reviews by superiors might also act as

deterrents for women who are considering whether

or not to pursue a new career, promotion, project, or

pay raise—some might also deter them from staying.

This is also a poor outcome for businesses, who will

benefit greatly from the advancement of policies that

more directly represent their actual interests without

the interference of gender bias or the risk of deterring

assets and promoting underperformers.

“While both men and women may

have been held to stereotyped

expectations, women particularly

suffered when they did not meet

expectations, and men gained

when they did.”



36

Key Findings:

In much of the workforce, success and authority are

viewed as inherently unfeminine, sometimes resulting

in social backlash labeling female leaders as abrasive,

pushy, untrustworthy, manipulative, selfish, and less

desirable as a boss than men simply because they are

women leaders.

The double standard requiring both technical competence and interpersonal warmth of women still applies to leaders,

and they may, in fact, appear to come under greater scrutiny because of their position.

Because social backlash against female leaders appears to stem from their perceived abandonment of nurturing fe-

male qualities, showing examples of one’s communal workstyle, home life, and personality can counter bias.

As with other counters to gender bias, general overtures (e.g. proof of effective leadership) do not ameliorate effects,

but tailored information can, such as proof of nurturing, collaborative leadership, and even status as a parent. Simi-

larly, communal behavior must clearly originate with the female manager; if her superior or a company policy can be

viewed as the root cause of her communality, bias may not be overcome.

Just as success and authority themselves are not easily accepted in women, expressions of authority and anger can

be seen as uncalled-for in women and contribute to perceptions that a female manager is “crazy” or “out of control.”

Social backlash can also result in lower status conferral and assumptions of lower competence and value.

Whereas anger does not require an explanation for men, women can counter backlash by offering information that

identifies the cause for anger as a reasonable external source, such as a frustrating situation.

“We so instantly sex-categorize others that our

subsequent categorizations of them as, say, bosses or

coworkers are nested in our prior understandings of

them as male or female and take on slightly different

meanings as a result” (Ridgeway, 2009).

Women can readily be observed and accepted as in-

charge in a domestic setting (Brescoll & Uhlmann,

2008), but the concepts of professional success and

leadership are often seen as unsuitable to the femi-

nine ideal, resulting in social backlash that can impair

women’s ability to rise up as well as to lead. While the

previous section on attributional rationalization and

highlighted how success can be explained away or

denied to women under certain circumstances, this

section will explore how gender bias can impact office

STATISTICS

In 2013, women held 36% of managerial jobs,

owned a part in 26% of businesses.

Why This Matters For Tennessee’s workforce to be more effective, it

will have to become better at hiring and promoting

the best person for the job, but changes need to

occur after that point as well. It is clearly inefficient

for a manager’s authority to be undercut and for the

tools available to them to be limited due to sex.

While future publications will likely consider the

dearth of women in the boardroom in much greater

detail, the observations in this section may contrib-

ute to a better understanding of how women’s

advancement appears to stall in lower management

positions and they remain underrepresented in high-

status positions of corporate leadership and govern-

ance.

Gender Bias in

Leadership


37

dynamics for those women who have achieved a

leadership position.

Resistance to Female Success Women in the workforce are commonly required to

balance impressions of technical competence with

social warmth, and failure to do so can lead to

presumptions of poor performance and social

penalties (see Self-Promotion and Impression-

Management for more). Critically, the risk of dis-

rupting that balance is not limited to the execution of

tasks. Particularly in male-

gendered roles and fields,

even success itself can be

viewed as stereotypically

unfeminine, creating an

additional level of scrutiny

for high-performing

women.

Importantly, recent re-

search indicates this may

not be a reaction to women

employing male-gendered,

agentic traits like independence or drive, but rather a

product of the perception that they’ve abandoned

feminine, communal values. This distinction is

important, not only to the extent that it can help

realign gender stereotypes in the long-run, but also

because successful women can take steps in the short

-term to avoid backlash by making their communal

characteristics more conspicuous.

A set of experiments performed by Heilman and

Okimoto in 2007 showed how expectations of

warmth can impact impressions of female managers

in a male-gendered field like finance. In the study,

participants were given materials about three manag-

ers with varied descriptions of their managerial styles

(generic praise, praise with description of communal

style, and no additional praise) and were asked to

evaluate the managers (of which half were male and

half were female). In the results, male managers were

judged consistently regardless of whether they

received additional praise or how it was styled, but

for female managers, results from the communal

leadership style condition varied substantially from

the other two.

Specifically, in both the “no praise” and “generic

praise” conditions, women were seen as less likeable,

more hostile (a composite of rankings for abrasive,

pushy, untrustworthy, manipulative, and selfish) and

less desirable as a boss than their male peers. In fact,

when compared to the female managers in these two

conditions, male managers were deemed the more

likeable and more

desirable boss in three

out of four cases.

When described as

communal, however,

this great deficit was

overcome: communal

female managers were

just as likely as men to

be deemed desirable

bosses, and were even

viewed as more likable.

Also, in a possible expression of gender penalties for

emotionally warm men, communal women tended to

be favored over communal men (Heilman & Okimoto,

2007).

Ambiguity and Sourcing

Echoing a trend found elsewhere in gender bias

research, women must meet fairly specific require-

ments to overcome backlash; generic, ambiguous

information rarely does the trick. In this case, the

generic praise condition did nothing to mitigate the

social penalty for women succeeding in male tasks;

only information that was specifically tailored to

counter that bias by affirming warmth had any

impact. Further rounds of study showed that women

with authority only benefited from communality

when they were its unambiguous source. If the source

of warmth could be attributed to an external factor

“We so instantly sex-categorize

others that our subsequent

categorizations of them as, say,

bosses or coworkers are nested in

our prior understandings of them

as male or female and take on

slightly different meanings as a

result.”

Leadership


38

like a company initiative, or the inclusive style of their

own boss, female managers were less frequently seen

as likeable or desirable bosses. Only when the

warmth was clearly theirs did this information help.

Interestingly, status as a parent also served to smooth

over female success; not only by eliminating the male

advantage, but even favoring female managers. These

findings suggest that, while motherhood can be

disadvantageous in processes like hiring (Ellemers,

2014), its implication of communality may be an asset

for women whose technical competence and career

commitment are no longer easily questionable

(Heilman & Okimoto, 2007).

Leadership Style As previously noted, female success in male-gendered

work can elicit negative responses. When provided

only with the information that a female manager has

been successful, men and women have both been

shown to characterize them as lacking communal

interpersonal qualities, and possessing traits such as

selfishness, deceitfulness, deviousness, coldness, and

manipulativeness (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007 citing

Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995; Heilman, Block,

Martell, & Simon, 1989; Heilman et al., 2004).

The problem extends beyond first impressions, with

female managers commonly being scrutinized more

closely for their leadership style as well. For example,

when female leaders attempt to establish their

authority in a traditional, domineering manner, they

tend to be evaluated more harshly than their male

peers (Rudman, 1998)—who, it should be noted, can

be penalized for being too yielding or emotionally

weak (Ridgeway, 2009), but rarely as severely as

women (Heilman & Haynes, 2005). For men, social

and professional expectations align as they pursue

leadership roles (Phelan & Rudman, 2010), but female

leaders face the typical double bind of needing to

express competence and authority as well as warmth

and communality.

Likely as a way to meet both standards, many women

adopt a more participative, supportive leadership

style, which corresponds more closely with the

prescriptive gender roles (Ellemers, 2014). However,

readers should bear in mind the risks inherent in

developing a highly collaborative managerial style:

chiefly, that teamwork can promote ambiguity about

the source of success and leadership. This could

expose female managers to gender-related pitfalls

like attributional rationalization, in which a lack of

explicit information could cause women’s success as

leaders to be falsely credited to nearby male team

members.

Expression of Anger

The double standard placed on working women is so

complete that while success is assumed to come from

an outward source, female expressions of anger are

often attributed to internal “self-regulation failure”

unless it is obvious that an external source is at fault

(Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008). The result is a tendency

to dismiss and devalue women who express anger as

“crazy,” “out of control,” or “an angry person.” This

occurs in contrast with the treatment of men, for

whom anger is acceptable and may even be more

respected when it has no clear external cause.

Brescoll & Uhlmann offer a two-part theory about

why this happens. First, anger is a masculine trait,

making it a gender violation for women (but not for

men) to express it in the workforce; second, when

low-status individuals behave in aberrant ways, their

motives tend to be attributed to internal, personality-

Leadership


39

based sources. As such, women can be seen as out of

order when expressing anger in the workplace and

may be subject to backlash in status conferral, salary

allocation, judgments of competence (Brescoll &

Uhlmann, 2008), likeability, and desirability as a boss

(Heilman & Okimoto, 2007). These effects appear to

be applied consistently to women regardless of their

occupational rank—from trainees to CEOs—and may

be particularly relevant to female managers, who

might appropriately rely on occasional expressions of

anger to assert authority, and for whom respect and

the appearance of competence are critical to effective

leadership.

Apart from avoiding expressions of anger altogeth-

er—a tenuous solution at best—research indicates

that “external, situational explanations for anger

ameliorate negative responses to angry women…”

allowing them to “express anger, while simultaneous-

ly fulfilling one of the most basic social motivations:

gaining status and power” (Brescoll & Uhlmann,

2008).

As is consistently the case with other expressions of

bias in the workforce, negative responses to female

anger appear to flourish in ambiguity but can be

minimized when certain information is available.

Leadership


40

There is near-unanimous agreement that women earn less money than men (Stanley & Jarrell, 1998) when measured

at the median among full-time, year-round workers, with most methods marking the gap between genders at or

around 20% in Tennessee and across the United States. This figure would likely be larger if it also included part-time

work or accounted for hourly wages, as women are at least as likely as men to work part-time, but hold multiple part-

time jobs at twice the rate and earn minimum wage or less in substantially higher numbers. At a time when women are

increasingly relied upon as providers, narrowing the gap is one way to ensure that more of our state’s labor and re-

sources are in reach of those with some of the greatest responsibility.

Gender bias is a fundamental component of the wage gap problem, and as such, addressing it would go a long way to-

ward improving access. However, bias doesn’t quite factor into the wage gap in the way that most people discuss it,

and truly tackling the barriers to opportunity will require a reassessment of the entire equation.

Two very common assessments of the disparity in earnings prevail in today’s discourse.

One argument is overly simple: that a wage gap exists and that the gap reflects identical employees performing identi-

cal work. Because it rarely extends further than this statement, this assessment tends to imply that discrimination

(explicit bias) and stereotyping (implicit bias) are the dominant causes, and that they consistently act at the individual

level to the disadvantage of women. In this scenario, the wage gap equation looks like this:

Argument Number 1

This is not quite right, however. As was discussed in the Hiring and Wages section, after accounting for a variety of oth-

er influences such as hours worked, education, skill level, and career interruptions like parenthood, most researchers

estimate that bias may only be directly responsible for one-quarter to one-half of the 20% gap. (Greszler & Sherk, 2014;

Wall & Reed, 2001) This is not insignificant, but this way of thinking fails to explain the entire problem.

The second assessment follows suit by placing the wage gap on the right side of the equation as the problem, but lists a

host of important observations and causes on the left side. This is closer to the truth but still misrepresents the prob-

lem of access by pointing to the wage gap as the central problem.

Argument Number 2

Workplace Bias:

Explicit Bias (Discrimination)

Implicit Bias (Stereotyping)

Wage Gap

Career Interruptions (parenthood)

Occupation & Industry Preferences

Hours Worked

Education & Experience (pipeline)

Wage vs Benefit Preferences

Workplace Bias (Implicit & Explicit)

Wage Gap

How Does Bias Factor into the Gender Wage Gap?


41

Existing implicit and explicit bias and backlash in economi-cally significant processes like hiring, negotiation, advance-ment, and office dynamics

Traditional occupation & education distributions

Familial/social gender roles and obligations related to communality and caregiving

Buy-in and adherence to stereotypes about male and female strengths

Anxiety about stereotypical weaknesses

Biological differences and needs (physical differences and possible innate preferences)

Cycle of Gender Disparities in

Earnings, Choice, Opportunity,

Stability, and Safety

Career interruptions (e.g. child birth)

Hours worked/life balance decisions (commonly related to caregiving)

Occupation & industry segregation and personal preferences

Education & experience pipeline problems (in which early shortages cause similar and worse shortages further up the ladder)

Wage vs benefit preferences (healthcare)

Perpetuation of causes through observa-tion and emulation by future generations and institutionalization in policies and practices.

Arguments 1 and 2 both contain a portion of the truth, and the second certainly encompasses a greater number of con-

tributing factors, but neither address the full scope of the problem or identify the complex interrelation of the causes.

While not exhaustive, Argument 3, below, better identifies many of the features of our society and workforce that per-

petuate the economic disparities observed between men and women. Just as importantly, it highlights how many of

the phenomena often described as causes of inequality (e.g. education and experience pipeline problems, industry seg-

regation) are also common problems with roots in gender-based assumptions and biased expectations. Moreover, it

illustrates the array of serious disparities that are often overlooked in the wage gap debate such as occupational choice

and safety through financial independence.

Argument Number 3

In summary, bias plays an incredibly large role in the disparities that have formed between men and women, including

those dealing with wage. By relying on and reinforcing the antiquated male-provider/female-caregiver stereotype, bias

influences decision making by both men and women, informs our collective response to biological requisites like

parenthood, guides how we see ourselves and one another, and shapes the systems through which we coordinate so-

cial behavior, learning, work, and civic organization. In this way, gender bias appears to be present in every facet of the

current disparities between men and women.

How does Bias Factor into the Gender Wage Gap?


42

The vast majority of gender bias research in social psychology occurs among white, college-age or college-educated

populations in scenarios that avoid variations that could skew outcomes. While this results in consistent information

that is applicable to a majority of Tennesseans, it offers no insight into how factors like age, appearance, disability, so-

cio-economic status, parental status, ethnicity or race could compound with discrimination on the basis of sex and cre-

ate multiple barriers to economic empowerment. Briefly, this section will consider two of the most impactful character-

istics mentioned (race and motherhood) and explore how gender discrimination has been shown to overlap and possi-

bly be intensified or facilitated by other factors. While this information is by no means comprehensive, it is intended as

a backdrop for the bias discussed elsewhere in this document, and as a reference point for future work.

Race & Ethnicity

Racial discrimination does not always affect women and men equally, or in the same way, and there are circumstances

in which racial discrimination only, or primarily affects women (UNDAW). Related research specifically in the area of

workforce bias suggests that women of color may encounter additional hardships in male-gendered fields as opposed

to white women. In a 2014 survey of women in science fields (Williams, Phillips, & Wall, 2014) for example, black fe-

male researchers were 20% more likely than their White, Latina, and Asian-American colleagues to report a need to

provide extensive evidence to established their competence with colleagues.

Asian-American participants reported the highest pressure to fit into traditionally feminine roles in the workplace, and

half or more reported social backlash in response to masculine behaviors like being assertive or self-promoting.

Meanwhile, Latina women were the most likely to report being labeled as “angry” or “too emotional” in response to

behavior that was either assertive or simply not deferential, and were much more likely than their peers to be ex-

pected to do menial tasks around the office, such as making coffee.

Interestingly, while most non-white groups experienced an average or greater amount of adversity in most categories,

some were also distinct in the ways that they were less accountable to expectations. For example, just 8% of Black

women surveyed reported expectations that they fill feminine roles in the office (as opposed to a 40% or more in other

groups) and Black women were also least likely to receive backlash for efforts of self-promotion. Supporting experi-

mental studies on the subject (Livingston, Rosette, & Washington, 2012), interviews confirmed that Black women were

permitted more leeway when acting in dominant ways as long as they weren’t seen as “angry Black women.” Another

distinction was that Black women tended to attribute bias (particularly having to prove competence) to their race ra-

ther than their gender.

This survey provides a valuable insight into the shape that gender and race intersectionality may take throughout the

workforce. The higher burden of proof required of Black women to establish competence, for example, illustrates how

lower expectations of female performance may compound with perceptions that African-Americans are less educated

(Bendick & Nunes, 2012) as well as observations that job applicants are as much as 50% more likely to get a call back if

the name on their resume is typical of White Americans versus African-Americans (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2003).

The Intersection of Gender, Race, and Other Biases


43

Motherhood It is conceivable that the biological realities of motherhood—rather than differences in strength, for example—gave

original breath to the male-provider/female-caregiver binary, which continues to shape access to economic and social

resources along gender lines. This divide begins in the early necessities of pregnancy, birth, and nursing, but also ex-

tends into the lifetimes of parents through the social structures created around infant care. Similarly, motherhood has

both immediate and long term effects in today’s workforce; some of which are rather unavoidable and limited in time

while others are largely a matter of social construction and can span years. Importantly, all of these considerations con-

stitute gender bias, as “While the benefits of mothering defuse widely—to employers, neighbors, friends, spouses, and

children of adults who received the mothering—the costs of child rearing are borne disproportionately by mothers

(Budig & England, 2001).”

In concrete terms, the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers in America has been reported to be approximate-

ly the same as that seen between women and men overall (approximately a 20% gap), and single mothers, in particu-

lar, may earn as little as two-thirds of what non-mothers earn (Güngör & Biernat, 2008 citing Blades, & Rowe-

Finkbeiner, 2006). Mothers have also been estimated to encounter wage penalties ranging from 5% to 7% per child

relative to non-parent female peers—with married mothers being the most likely to be penalized (Budig & England,

2001).

This disparity in wage is likely influenced by hiring disparities, as pregnant women may be seen as qualified and well-

suited for a job, but still deemed less hireable due to concerns about future absenteeism (Cunningham & Macan,

2007). Mothers also appear to face a more severe dilemma between presumed incompetence and coldness, lower in-

terest in promotion, and mentorship (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2004), and an assumption of lower commitment. This in

contrast with men who tend to be viewed as warmer when they become fathers, but are still judged as competent

(Correll, 2013).

Lastly, in the interviews by Williams, Phillips, and Hall (2014), motherhood was a consistent source of bias across

among Latina, Black, Asian-American, and White women, but certain nuances showed racial bias as well: Asian-

Americans (26.7%) and White women (26.0%) were far more likely than Latinas (9.1%) or Black women (7.7%) to report

that their colleagues had communicated that they should work fewer hours because they had children.

Importantly, while motherhood has a tremendous impact on women in the workplace, it is not a necessary that a

women be perceived specifically as a caregiver or mother for gender bias against women to occur (Güngör & Biernat,

2008).

The Intersection of Gender, Race, and Other Biases


44

Updated recommendations and resources can be found at www.tennesseewomen.org

Workers and Jobseekers

The ugly truth of succeeding today, right now Research in recent decades has consistently revealed an implicit (unconscious) preference for male-gendered traits like

assertiveness, competitiveness, and expressive self-confidence in male-dominated fields (sciences, technology, engi-

neering, mathematics, finance, law) and in positions of authority across the workforce. This bias has been observed in

studies of hiring, negotiation, work outcome assessment, response to managerial styles, and other important scenari-

os, where its impact is significant despite going unnoticed by those involved. The findings expose a number of long-

term, structural vulnerabilities in our workforce, but they also reveal several trends which women and men can put to

use today to improve their own competitiveness.

1. Many work environments expect women to be both masculine and feminine. While most boys are raised

to embody societal expectations of power and agency, girls are more commonly brought up to be warm, communal,

nurturing and deferential. Unfortunately, few professions prioritize the latter traits in scenarios of high economic sig-

nificance like hiring, negotiation, work assessment, and promotion. While many men are able to navigate the work-

place by naturally expressing the traits they were raised to have, women are frequently called upon to meet con-

trasting standards like technical competence and interpersonal warmth, and are shown to be penalized more than men

when they fall short of expectations. Fair or not, women must be aware of this double-standard as it currently exists,

and should work to identify what qualities are expected of them in different circumstances.

2. Technical competence and agency tend to outperform modesty. When applying for a position in a male-

dominated field or when applying to a position of authority, women and men should both consider emphasizing their

more masculine, agentic qualities. Research has shown significant advantages for candidates of both genders when

they express their ability to be action-oriented, independent, and confident in their work, and when they take the leap

and initiate negotiation. Women, and also men, who are modest rather than self-promoting, and who fail to express a

sense of agency are often shown to lose out to candidates with more masculine-typed behaviors. Similarly, those who

do not initiate negotiation, rarely achieve better terms.

These traits are not only synonymous with male behavior, but also with competence and success in the roles that men

commonly hold. Failure to express agentic traits may open the door for stereotype-based bias that nudges employers,

supervisors, and peers toward doubts about your competence and success. Readers should be reminded; however,

that immodesty remains a risk for women, and should still be approached with care.

Takeaways & Recommendations

“To be effective, change must occur on two levels: within individuals and within the system.

As individuals, we must educate ourselves not only about the problem, but also about

solutions…. What are we willing to give up to achieve change? ...Individual change begins

with greater awareness, which can be painful” (Cole & Guy-Sheftall, 2003).

http://www.tennesseewomen.org


45

3. One is good, but both are better; try to be agentic or warm where appropriate. Crucially, data indicates

that women who can self-monitor their behavior and be both agentic and nurturing at the right times have more suc-

cess. It is ill-advised to assume that all men and women share one quality or another, but research may provide a good

place to begin as you gauge your audience. It may be important, for example, to show modesty with a female evaluator

or peer, while men may be more outcome dependent and value skills that will benefit a future mutual project.

4. Eliminate ambiguity around your work and your achievements. During situations that assess previous work

like interviews, negotiations, and annual reviews, women must find ways to be explicit about their past performance

and their contribution to successful efforts. Studies on bias indicate that implicit negative gender stereotypes (which

downplay female competency) tend to be the default lens through which female performance is observed. Moreover,

research indicates that women may not be given the benefit of the doubt when they make vague statements about

past performance. In one example, women and men reporting that they performed in the top 20 percent of their peer

group were treated differently, with men being received as though they reported being in the top 2%, and women re-

ceiving responses comparable to those who provided no information at all about past performance. Thankfully, when

implicit stereotypes are countered by concrete examples of success, these unconscious assumptions can be brought

into an explicit, or conscious and deliberate frame of mind, where gender bias is much less influential.

Similarly, to the extent that one is able to influence the structure of a project, it is important to promote assignments

that clearly express each participant’s role in them, so that successful outcomes are clearly attributable. Particularly in

male-gendered tasks, and in multi-gender teams, observers tend to assume that women are less competent team

members than their male peers, are less likely to contribute to successful outcomes, and are least likely to take a lead-

ership role. Shaping an assignment so that the distinct work of each team member can be recognized and evaluated

independently is a valuable way to block out gender bias and get the credit deserved.

5. Know your observer and don’t assume that female evaluators will favor women. Research on gender bias

has shown that women are just as likely as men to express implicit, unconscious bias against women in the workforce.

Both women and men unconsciously access the same social stereotypes about competence in the workplace, and

women may even hold other women more accountable to certain behaviors, such violations of modesty.

6. More than first impressions. Implicit bias won’t hold the same sway over coworkers who know a person well,

but the stereotypical assumptions we develop appear to be accessible at all times, and implicit bias can play a factor in

how individuals and their work are viewed. Even after being hired and working with peers, women should remember

the impression-management techniques that got them where they are. In fact, data supports the view that gender

bias has more sway on information processing and decision-making higher up the ladder, so these efforts will remain

critical as women pursue further opportunities.

7. Even women leaders are expected to be warm. For women, authority and success are already violations of

gender stereotypes, so female leaders can face additional scrutiny. Similar to the communal expectations of women as

workers, female managers can be held to expectations that they nurturing or suffer social backlash. For some, this

means developing a team-oriented leadership style, which allows for the exercise of authority and the social satisfac-

tion of interpersonal warmth. For others, clear indications of warmth, such as parenthood, can help meet both stand-

ards.



46

8. Provide information that validates emotion. Anger and other emotions can be of vital use in establishing status

and managing staff, but because authority and anger are seen as male-gendered, women can experience social back-

lash as a result. When expressing anger, it is important for women to make apparent that the situation around them is

the source of their frustration. Otherwise, observers may view the expression as an internally driven, unwarranted

lapse in judgement.

9. Do your homework. Information is consistently an equalizer for women approaching economically significant pro-

cesses like hiring and negotiation. When candidates were least likely to know information like reasonable salary expec-

tations for a position, women were shown to sign-on to significantly lower starting salaries. In experiments where

women have a good sense for what they can reasonably ask for, the gap between genders is narrowed or eliminated.

Furthermore, women may be more likely to be lied to in negotiation settings, and greater information can help with

detection of deceit.

Employers and Supervisors

Fixing the whole problem Even if one immediate recommendation for female jobseekers is to put their masculine foot forward when searching

for work in male-gendered fields or for positions of authority in general, it cannot be the public preference that women

be forced to pretend, or work to be a different version of their professional self indefinitely or face recrimination.

Workforce policies that disadvantage women must be identified and discarded, and those that diminish artificial barri-

ers to entry and success should be institutionalized.—not only because they help women, but because they promote

workforce efficiency.

In general:

10. Acknowledge and discuss bias in a comprehensive and compelling manner. Bias doesn’t have to be dis-

cussed in the context of protected classes and discrimination. The reasons to combat gender bias have largely to do

with making more effective decisions for businesses and correcting the system of incentives for employees. Moreover,

implicit bias is an unconscious process that we all share in, which means nobody is at personal fault, but everyone can

be responsible for combatting it. Once employees are aware of common biases in the workplace, they may be more

likely to scrutinize their decisions and the processes around them.

11. Seek out and diminish ambiguity where possible. When decision-makers are forced to work with limited

information, stereotypes are shown to fill the gaps.

12. Hold decision makers accountable for their choices. When individuals know they will be required to justify

their conclusions to a superior or to their peers, they will be more likely to reach them in a cognitively busy fashion,

which is shown to diminish the influence of implicit bias. Superiors can also prime a decision maker to treat choices

without bias by establishing their own belief that the candidates or options are all satisfactorily qualified.

13. Take time. Rushing through a decision is similar to making one with limited information; stereotypes thrive in

quick, unconscious decision-making. By allowing time for deliberation and thoughtfulness at each step of a process,

decisions are likely to be more effective, efficient, and equitable.



47

14. Be involved as men. The progress that women can make alone is limited and appears to be slowing. Engaging

the full workforce and the full workplace in support of each of its members is the best way to move forward.

15. Create a path of communication. Implement an anonymous method by which employees can express concerns

about bias without risk of backlash.

16. The mixed value of mixed-gender teams. Embracing diversity in human resources and management teams is

an important part of fostering robust decision-making and minimizing the bias that lone individuals or homogeneous

groups might display, but it is important for employers to remember that female presence does not automatically can-

cel out bias, as women tend to share the same stereotypically low expectations of women in categories like technical

competence.

17. Normalize the expression of emotions. Based on stereotypes alone, expressions of anger and authority can be

seen as inappropriate and inwardly sourced for women. Employers should foster awareness about this double stand-

ard, create an environment that gives both men and women the initial benefit of the doubt, and also hold men ac-

countable for behavior that would be viewed as undesirable from a woman.

18. Consider family leave and caregiving policies for both genders. While fatherhood can imply stability and

professionalism for men, motherhood results in assumptions that they are less committed, less competent, and ulti-

mately poorly suited to demanding and male-gendered work. Policies promoting parenthood for both genders, such as

family leave and reasonable flexibility accommodations, can minimize the lopsided hardship that parenthood can mean

for women. Similarly, encouraging men to participate in leave programs might promote morale from fathers while also

narrowing the gap in presenteeism and absenteeism between mothers and fathers in the workplace.

In hiring:

19. Beware of gatekeeper requirements. Employers should measure the value of minimum criteria like education,

work experience, and specific degrees against the likelihood that minority or female candidates might meet them. In

some cases, requirements may artificially shrink a labor pool and disenfranchise prospects without adding value to the

process.

20. Avoid the risk of bias by eliminating gender information. Implicit bias exists outside of social situations, in-

cluding when reading a resume or considering the “type” of person that would fit a position well. As a result, it may be

helpful to some employers to redact or insert proxies for gender-salient information like names or specific activities on

a resume. Scoring resumes without knowledge of gender is an excellent way to minimize gender bias and focus on

merit.

21. Ask for specific information about past experience and success. Proof of excellent past performance and

individualized acknowledgements of success, particularly from a third party, are shown to counter stereotypical ten-

dency to devalue female achievement. For this reason, encouraging letters of support and other supplementary docu-

mentation from candidates may be a helpful equalizer, though employers should be aware that letters of support can

also carry gendered information and bias.



48

22. Normalize the interview process. Both male and female evaluators have been shown to adjust the sort of infor-

mation they seek in response to the gender of candidates. Employers should script out questions before interviewing

candidates to ensure that assessments don’t unintentionally drift in response to such factors.

23. Don’t be mislead by self-promotion. Implicit gender bias has been shown to create favoritism toward male self

-promoters, resulting in underqualified candidates being chosen over female counterparts, who risk social backlash

from self-promotion.

In negotiation:

24. Consider what value negotiation skills bring to your business and whether or not you want to reward

them. The ability to represent one’s own interests is a deeply held virtue in America, and businesses that make use

of interpersonal savviness and deal-making may benefit from a process that rewards strong negotiators, but there

are many positions in which those skills or the willingness to initiate their use would be of little benefit.

This is particularly important because women are less likely to initiate negotiation and tend to be less successful.

While some businesses have considered eliminating negotiation entirely, some employers might prefer to broach

negotiation themselves to overcome the disparity in initiation, or provide more detailed compensation ranges in

advance, as such information is shown to narrow the gap between male and female outcomes. Employers should

also consider whether negotiated salaries create a disparity with existing employees. If a new hire is worth a certain

amount, their existing peers may be as well.

In evaluation:

25. Structure tasks in ways that anticipate attributional rationalization and devaluing. Gender assumptions

(and preferences) about low female technical competence and submissiveness can result in lopsided performance re-

views and inaccurate assessments of female contributions to teamwork, particularly when ambiguity is high. Female

success can be falsely attributed to an office policy, the work of a superior, or nearby men. In fact, women have even

been shown to devalue their own contributions to success. In order to avoid this mistake in recognition, employers can

structure task assignments so that it is clear who has excelled.

26. Audit evaluation procedures for components that are likely to foster implicit responses. Whereas narra-

tive praise is likely to require deliberative consideration of an employee, numerical ratings might rely on more instinc-

tual responses to complete. Employers should be sure that abstract components are accompanied by detailed, uni-

form descriptions of what each number generally implies. Also, where possible, internal reviews of evaluation proce-

dures should be performed to identify trends in evaluation that may be the result of bias, such as weighting male re-

views according to competence and linking female success to interpersonal warmth.

In advancement:

27. Prominent examples of diversity help grow a diverse office. Repeated exposure to counterstereotypical

inputs like female leaders and coworkers in male-gendered fields have been shown to improve the perceptions of

women (Beaman, et al., 2009) and reduce the expression of automatic gender stereotypes about women (Dasgupta

& Asgari, 2004).



49

28. Gender bias appears to be most stubborn when considering powerful positions. Gendered responses ap-

pear to be most common when considering individuals for [or in] powerful positions and least relevant to perceptions

of those with low-status. Perhaps because success and authority are themselves male-gendered in much of the work-

force, women encounter greater implicit resistance when being considered for higher roles both publicly and privately,

high performance is much more commonly rewarded in men than in women, and even high-powered women continue

to be held to standards of warmth and communality, which do not translate into the same status that competency

does for men. As a result, employers should pay special attention to the processes used to elevate powerful positions.

Importantly, it seems to be evaluation culture itself (as opposed to job requirements) that will need to change in order

for progress to be made. Research indicates that “feminizing” management positions (i.e. requiring candidates to ex-

press more warmth) may do more harm than good for women by more formally requiring women to meet the double

standard of competence and warmth that women already face (Rudman & Glick, 1999), and doing so in a high-profile

circumstance in which women, by virtue of achieving authority, may already be violating feminine expectations.

Others

Tennessee Economic Council on Women This report works primarily to define the problem of gender bias in the workforce and to offer a starting point for work-

ers and employers who want to know more about how the social structures of gender interact with economically sig-

nificant processes. Following this report, the Economic Council’s next responsibility should be to delve deeper into the

matter of employer policies, to make more precise recommendations and to provide valuable tools to business owners

and managers who want to tackle gender inequality in their workplace. To this end, the Economic Council has estab-

lished this topic to be it’s next major release as part of the Women & Work: Barriers Series.

Policymakers and Thought Leaders When considered in the context of the workforce, gender bias is an incredibly prevalent inefficiency. It seems natural,

then, that the individuals best suited to address it are workers themselves and the employers who shape the workplac-

es around them. However, gender bias is neither born from nor isolated to the economically significant processes dis-

cussed here; it is fostered in a continuous cycle of influence throughout society at large. In this way, we are all a part of

its perpetuation as well as agents of its change.

This is where our state’s great voices will be invaluable. We must talk about the root causes and dismal outcomes of

gender inequality and bias in every corner of Tennessee. Every policy, every law, every action must be considered

within the context of gender and how it impacts the many caregivers and providers of this state. Until we tackle this

problem from every angle, stubborn bias will persist to the detriment of Tennessee’s businesses and families.



50

Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: gender differences in assertive negotiating are

mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, Vol. 98, No. 2, 256-267.

Arth, W. (2016). Women & work: Providers in Tennessee. Tennessee Economic Council on Women. (upcoming)

Ayers, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995) Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. American Economic Re-

view, 85, 304-321.

Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Barron, L. A. (2003). Gender differences in negotiators’ beliefs. Human Relations, 56, 635-662.

Beaman, L. A., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2009). Powerful women: does exposure reduce

bias? (No. w14198). Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4).

Bendick, Jr., M., & Nunes, A. P. (2012) Developing the research basis for controlling bias in hiring. Journal of Social Is-

sues, Vol. 68, No. 2, 238-262.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2003) Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experi-

ment on labor market discrimination. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9873.

Biernat, M., Tocci, M. J., & Williams, J. C. (2012). The language of performance evaluations: Gender-based shifts in con-

tent and consistency of judgement. Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, 186-192.

Blades, J., & Rowe-Finkbeiner, K. (2006). The motherhood manifesto: What America’s moms want and what to do

about it. Nation Books.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotia-

tions: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 103, 84-103.

Bowles, H.R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. (2004). Gender as a situational phenomenon in negotiation. Unpublished manu-

script, Harvard University.

Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of

emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science, Volume 19, No. 3, 268-275.

Buchan, N., Croson, R., & Solnick, S. (2004). Gender as a situational phenomenon in negotiation. Unpublished manu-

script, Harvard University.

Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review Vol. 66, No. 2, 204-

225.

Caldwell, M. D. (1976). Communication and sex effects in a five-person prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 33, 273-280.

Bibliography


51

CareerBuilder, Forty-nine percent of workers do not negotiate job offers, finds CareerBuilder compensation survey.

Press Release, August 21, 2013.

Cole, J. B., & Guy-Sheftall, B. (2003) Gender talk: The struggle for women’s equality in African American communities.

New York: One World

Correll, S. J. (2013). Minimizing the motherhood penalty: What works, what doesn’t and why? Research Symposium.

Gender & Work: Challenging Conventional Wisdom.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal

of Social Issues, Vol. 60, No. 4, 701-718.

Cunningham, J., & Macan, T. (2007). Effects of applicant pregnancy on hiring decision and interview ratings. Sex Roles

Vol. 57, Issues 7, 497-508.

Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on

the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642-658.

Ellemers, N. (2014). Women at work: How organizational features impact career development, Social and Organiza-

tional Psychology, Leiden University.

Greszler, R., & Sherk, J. (2014, May 22). Equal pay for equal work: Examining the gender gap. The Heritage Foundation,

Issue Brief #4227. Retrieved August, 2015.

Güngör, G., & Biernat, M. (2009). Gender bias or motherhood disadvantage? Judgements of blue collar mothers and

fathers in the workplace. Sex Roles Vol. 60, Issue 3, 232-246.

Haynes, M.C., & Heilman, M. E. (2013). It had to be you (not me)! Women’s attributional rationalization of their contri-

bution to successful joint work outcomes. Personality of Social Psychology Bulletin, 1-14.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men,

women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 74, No. 6, 935-942.

Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success

in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 5, 905-916.

Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T.G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communali-

ty deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 1, 81-92.

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., Tamkins, M. M. (2004) Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 3, 416-427.

Holleran, S. E., Whitehead, J. Schmader, T., & Mehl, M. R. (2010). Talking shop and shooting the breeze: A study of

workplace conversation and job disengagement among STEM faculty. Social Psychology and Personality Science, Vol. 2,

No. 1, 65-71.

Hu, X., Antony, J.W., Creery, J.D., Vargas, I.M, Bodenhausen, G.V., Paller, K.A. (2015). Cognitive Neuroscience. Unlearn-

ing implicit social biases during sleep. Science, 348(6238).

Koch, S. C., Konigorski, S., & Sieverding, M. (2014). Sexist behavior undermines women’s performance in a job applica-

tion situation, Springer Science + Business Media

Bibliography


52

Krieger, L. H. (2004). The intuitive psychologist behind the bench: Models of gender bias in social psychology and em-

ployment discrimination law. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 60, No. 4, 835-848.

Kray, L. J., Galinsky, A. D., &Thompson, L. (2002) Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: an exploration of stereotype

regeneration. Organizational behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 87, No. 2, 386-409.

Kray, L. J., Kennedy, J. A., & Van Zant, A. B. (2014). Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes

about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-

cesses Vol. 125, 61-72.

Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and

research. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, 103-182.

Livingston, R.W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic Black woman get ahead? The impact of race

and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, 354-358.

Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: on the nature of gender differences in per-

sonal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 6, 1399-1412.

Marks, M., & Harold, C. (2009). Who asks and who receives in salary negotiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

Vol. 32, Issue 3, 371-394.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gen-

der biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol.

109, No. 4.

O’Neill, O. A., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (2011). Reducing the backlash effect: Self-monitoring and women’s promotions. Jour-

nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84, 825-832.

Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Prejudice toward female leaders: Backlash effects and women’s impression man-

agement dilemma. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 4, No.10, 807-820.

Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2013). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 111, No. 12.

Ridgeway, C. L., (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender & Society, Vol. 23 No. 2,

145-160.

Roos, L. E., Lebrecht, S., Tanaka, J. W., & Tarr, M. J. (2013) Can singular examples change implicit attitudes in the real-

world? Frontiers in Pyschology, Vol 4, 594.

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impres-

sion management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 3, 629-645.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to

women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 5,

1004-1010.

Bibliography


53

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of So-

cial Issues, Vol. 57, 743-762.

Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Solnick, S. J. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 39, 189-200.

Small, D. A., Babcock, L., Gelfand, M., & Gettman, H. (2007). Who Goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender

and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality in Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93, No. 4,

600-613.

Snyder, K. (2014). The abrasiveness trap: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews. Fortune.

Speer, L., & Gutierrez, F. (2015). KIDS COUNT 2015 Data Book. Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes, What

do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly. Vol. 24, Issue 1, 44-62.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and an-

tecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Ex-

perimental Social Psychology, Vol 35, 4-28.

Stanley, T.D., & Jarrell, S.B. (1998). Gender wage discrimination bias? A meta-regression analysis. The Journal of Human

Resources, Vol. 33, No. 4, 947-973.

United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. Report of the Expert Group Meeting: Gender and racial dis-

crimination. 21-24 November 2000.

United States Census, American Communities Survey, 5-Year 2013 data sheets

Wall, H. J., Reed, A. (2001). How much of the gender wage gap is due to discrimination? Federal Reserve Bank of St.

Louis

Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2014). Double jeopardy? Gender bias against women of color in science. UC

Hastings College of the Law.

Bibliography

A Report From the Tennessee

Economic Council on Women

Chairwoman Dr. Dena Wise

Executive Director Dr. Phyllis Qualls-Brooks

Senior Research Manager William Arth

October 2015

Visit the Economic Council on Women at www.tennesseewomen.org

Or call Us At 615.253.4266

the costs of gender bias in tennessee's workforce - 10-27-15

Documents