Topic 7

Organizational structure
Types/classification.
 An organizational structure defines how activities such as task allocation, coordination, and supervision are directed toward the
achievement of organizational aims.] Organizational structure affects organizational action and provides the foundation on which standard
operating procedures and routines rest. It determines which individuals get to participate in which decision-making processes, and thus to
what extent their views shape the organization’s actions.[2]Organizational structure can also be considered as the viewing glass or
perspective through which individuals see their organization and its environment.[2]organizations are a variant of clustered entities.[3]
An organization can be structured in many different ways, depending on its objectives. The structure of an organization will
determine the modes in which it operates and performs. Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities for different
functions and processes to different entities such as the branch, department, workgroup, and individual.
Organizations need to be efficient, flexible, innovative and caring in order to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.[4]

Contents

1 Types
 Pre-bureaucratic structures
 1.2 Bureaucratic structures
 1.3 Post-bureaucratic
 Functional structure
 Divisional structure
 1.6 Matrix structure
 1.7 Organizational circle
 1.8 Team
 1.9 Network
 1.10 Virtual
 1.11 Hierarchy-community phenotype model
  History
 Military Command and Control
 4 Operational and informal
 5 Configurations of organizational structure according to Mintzberg
 5.1 Parts of organization
 5.2 Mechanisms of coordination
 5.3 Configurations of organizations
 6 Bibliography
 7 See also
 8 References

Types
See also: Hierarchical organization and Flat organization

Pre-bureaucratic structures
 Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is
best used to solve simple tasks. The structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is
done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new (entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth
and development. They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite
classification of authority.

Bureaucratic structures
 Large international organisation bureaucratic structure: the League of Nations in 1930.[5] Weber (1948, p. 214) gives the analogy that “the
fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine compare with the non-mechanical
modes of production. Precision, speed, unambiguity, … strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these
are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration.”[6] Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of
standardization. They are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations, usually adopting a tall structure. The tension
 between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in Burns and Stalker's[7] distinction between mechanistic and organic
structures.

 The Weberian characteristics of bureaucracy are:

 Clear defined roles and responsibilities
 A hierarchical structure
 Respect for merit

Bureaucratic structures have many levels of management ranging from senior executives to regional managers, all the way to department store
managers. Since there are many levels, decision-making authority has to pass through more layers than flatter organizations. A bureaucratic
organization has rigid and tight procedures, policies and constraints. This kind of structure is reluctant to adapt or change what they have been
doing since the company started. Organizational charts exist for every department, and everyone understands who is in charge and what their
responsibilities are for every situation. Decisions are made through an organizedaucratic structures, the authority is at the top and information is
then flowed from top to bottom. This causes for more rules and standards for the company which operational process is watched with close
supervision. Some advantages for bureaucratic structures for top-level managers are they have a tremendous control over organizational structure
decisions. This works best for managers who have a command and control style of managing. Strategic decision-making is also faster because
there are fewer people it has to go through to approve.[citation needed] A disadvantage in bureaucratic structures is that it can discourage
creativity and innovation in the organization. This can make it hard for a company to adapt to changing conditions in the marketplace.

Post-bureaucratic

 The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific.[8] In the
generic sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast
themselves with Weber's ideal type bureaucracy. This may include total quality management, culture management and matrix
management, amongst others. None of these however has left behind the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is
still Weber's rational, legal type, and the organization is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned up
bureaucracies,[9] rather than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon Kunda, in his classic study of culture management at
'Tech' argued that 'the essence of bureaucratic control - the formalization, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations - does not
change in principle.....it shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization's culture'.

Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization.,[9] provide a detailed discussion which
attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic
organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather
than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision-making rules rather
than decision-making rules. This sort of horizontal decision-making by consensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives
and when running a non-profit or community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who
normally experience oppression in groups.

Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity theory and organizations, and have focused on how simple structures
can be used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner et al. (2000) studied how simple structures could be used to generate
improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes links to simple structures and improviser learning. Other scholars such as
Jan Rivkin and Sigglekow,[10] and Nelson Repenning[11] revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.

Functional structure

 A functional organizational structure is a structure that consists of activities such as coordination, supervision and task allocation. The
organizational structure determines how the organization performs or operates. The term organizational structure refers to how the
people in an organization are grouped and to whom they report. One traditional way of organizing people is by function. Some common
functions within an organization include production, marketing, human resources, and accounting.
This organizing of specialization leads to operational efficiency, where employees become specialists within their own realm of
expertise. On the other hand, the most typical problem with a functional organizational structure is that communication within the company can
be rather rigid, making the organization slow and inflexible. Therefore, lateral communication between functions becomes very important, so that
information is disseminated not only vertically, but also horizontally within the organization. Communication in organizations with functional
organizational structures can be rigid because of the standardized ways of operation and the high degree of formalization.
As a whole, a functional organization is best suited as a producer of standardized goods and services at large volume and low cost.
Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional structure, which makes producing a limited number of products or services
efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiency can further be realized as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so that
products are sold and distributed quickly and at low cost.[12] For instance, a small business could make components used in production of its
products instead of buying them.
Even though functional units often perform with a high level of efficiency, their level of cooperation with each other is sometimes
compromised. Such groups may have difficulty working well with each other as they may be territorial and unwilling to cooperate. The occurrence
of infighting among units may cause delays, reduced commitment due to competing interests, and wasted time, making projects fall behind
schedule. This ultimately can bring down production levels overall, and the company-wide employee commitment toward meeting organizational
goals.
 Divisional structure
 The divisional structure or product structure consists of self-contained divisions. A division is a collection of functions which produce a
product. It also utilizes a plan to compete and operate as a separate business or profit center. According to Zainbooks.com, divisional
structure in America is seen as the second most common structure for organization today.[citation needed]
Employees who are responsible for certain market services or types of products are placed in divisional structure in order to
increase their flexibility. Examples of divisions include regional (a U.S Division and an EU division), consumer type (a division for companies and
one for households), and product type (a division for trucks, another for SUVS, and another for cars). The divisions may also have their own
departments such as marketing, sales, and engineering.
 The advantage of divisional structure is that it uses delegated authority so the performance can be directly measured with
each group. This results in managers performing better and high employee morale.[citation needed] Another advantage of
using divisional structure is that it is more efficient in coordinating work between different divisions, and there is more
flexibility to respond when there is a change in the market. Also, a company will have a simpler process if they need to
change the size of the business by either adding or removing divisions. When divisional structure is utilized more
specialization can occur within the groups. When divisional structure is organized by product, the customer has their own
advantages especially when only a few services or products are offered which differ greatly. When using divisional
structures that are organized by either markets or geographic areas they generally have similar function and are located in
different regions or markets. This allows business decisions and activities coordinated locally.

 The disadvantages of the divisional structure is that it can support unhealthy rivalries among divisions. This type of
structure may increase costs by requiring more qualified managers for each division. Also, there is usually an over-
emphasis on divisional more than organizational goals which results in duplication of resources and efforts like staff
services, facilities, and personnel.

Matrix structure
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements
consisting only of original research should be removed. (October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The matrix structure groups employees by both function and product simultaneously. A matrix organization frequently uses teams of
employees to accomplish work, in order to take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and
decentralized forms. An example would be a company that produces two products, "product a" and "product b". Using the matrix structure, this
company would organize functions within the company as follows: "product a" sales department, "product a" customer service department,
"product a" accounting, "product b" sales department, "product b" customer service department, "product b" accounting department.
 Weak/functional matrix: A project manager with only limited authority is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the
project. The functional managers maintain control over their resources and project areas.

Balanced/functional matrix: A project manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project manager
and the functional managers. It brings the best aspects of functional and projectized organizations. However, this is the most difficult system to
maintain as the sharing of power is a delicate proposition.
Strong/project matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and assign
resources as needed.
 There are advantages and disadvantages of the matrix structure. Some of the disadvantages include tendencies towards anarchy,
power struggles and 'sinking' to group and division levels.[13] Matrices increase the complexity of the chain of command, which can
present problems because of the differentiation between functional managers and project managers. This, in turn, can be confusing
for employees to understand who is next in the chain of command. An additional disadvantage of the matrix structure is higher
manager to worker ratio that results in conflicting loyalties of employees. However, the matrix structure also has significant
advantages that make it valuable for companies to use. The matrix structure may improve upon the "silo" critique of functional
management in that it aims to diminish the vertical structure of functional and create a more horizontal structure which allows the
spread of information across task boundaries to happen much quicker. It aims to allow specialization to increase depth of
knowledge and allows individuals to be chosen according to project needs.

Organizational circle

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting
only of original research should be removed. (October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The flat structure is common in small companies (entrepreneurial start-ups, university spin offs). As companies grow they tend to become more
complex and hierarchical, which leads to an expanded structure, with more levels and departments.

However, in rare cases, such as the examples of Valve Corporation, GitHub, Inc. and 37signals, the organization remains very flat as it grows,
eschewing middle managers.[14] (However, GitHub subsequently introduced middle managers.) All of the aforementioned organizations operate
in the field of technology, which may be significant, as software developers are highly skilled professionals, much like lawyers. Senior lawyers also
enjoy a relatively high degree of autonomy within a typical law firm, which is typically structured as a partnership rather than a hierarchical
bureaucracy. Some other types of professional organizations are also commonly structured as partnerships, such as accountancy companies and
GP surgeries.
Often, growth would result in bureaucracy, the most prevalent structure in the past. It is still, however, relevant in former Soviet Republics, China,
and most governmental organizations all over the world. Shell Group used to represent the typical bureaucracy: top-heavy and hierarchical. It
featured multiple levels of command and duplicate service companies existing in different regions. All this made Shell apprehensive to market
changes,[15] leading to its incapacity to grow and develop further. The failure of this structure became the main reason for the company
restructuring into a matrix.

Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully developed the matrix structure supporting their focused strategy. Its design
combines functional and product based divisions, with employees reporting to two heads.[16]

Some experts also mention the multinational design,[17] common in global companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This
structure can be seen as a complex form of the matrix, as it maintains coordination among products, functions and geographic areas.

With the growth of the internet, and the associated access that gives all levels of an organization to information and communication via digital
means, power structures have begun to align more as a wirearchy, enabling the flow of power and authority to be based not on hierarchical levels,
but on information, trust, credibility, and a focus on results.

In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that through the forces of globalization, competition and more demanding
customers, the structure of many companies has become flatter, less hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.[18]
Team

One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is team and the related concept of team development or team
building. In small businesses, the team structure can define the entire organization.[17] Teams can be both horizontal and vertical.[19] While an
organization is constituted as a set of people who synergize individual competencies to achieve newer dimensions, the quality of organizational
structure revolves around the competencies of teams in totality.[20] For example, every one of the Whole Foods Market stores, the largest
natural-foods grocer in the US developing a focused strategy, is an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-managed teams,
while team leaders in each store and each region are also a team.[21] Larger bureaucratic organizations can benefit from the flexibility of teams as
well. Xerox, Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that actively use teams to perform tasks.
Network
Another modern structure is network. While business giants risk becoming too clumsy to proact (such as), act and react efficiently,[22] the new
network organizations contract out any business function, that can be done better or more cheaply. In essence, managers in network structures
spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external relations, usually by electronic means. H&M is outsourcing its clothing to a network
of 700 suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are based in low-cost Asian countries. Not owning any factories, H&M can be more flexible than
many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with its low-cost strategy.[23] The potential management opportunities offered by recent
advances in complex networks theory have been demonstrated[24] including applications to product design and development,[25] and innovation
problem in markets and industries.[26]
Virtual

Virtual organization is defined as being closely coupled upstream with its suppliers and downstream with its customers such that where one begins
and the other ends means little to those who manage the business processes within the entire organization. A special form of boundaryless
organization is virtual. Hedberg, Dahlgren, Hansson, and Olve (1999) consider the virtual organization as not physically existing as such, but
enabled by software to exist.[27] The virtual organization exists within a network of alliances, using the Internet. This means while the core of the
organization can be small but still the company can operate globally be a market leader in its niche. According to Anderson, because of the
unlimited shelf space of the Web, the cost of reaching niche goods is falling dramatically. Although none sell in huge numbers, there are so many
niche products that collectively they make a significant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful.[28]
Hierarchy-community phenotype model
Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure

In the 21st century, even though most, if not all, organizations are not of a pure hierarchical structure, many managers are still blind to the
existence of the flat community structure within their organizations.[29]

The business is no longer just a place where people come to work. For most of the employees, the firm confers on them that sense of belonging
and identity –– the firm has become their “village”, their community.[30] The firm of the 21st century is not just a hierarchy which ensures
maximum efficiency and profit; it is also the community where people belong to and grow together, where their affective and innovative needs
are met.[31]

Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) developed the Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure borrowing from the
concept of Phenotype from genetics. "A phenotype refers to the observable characteristics of an organism. It results from the expression of an
organism’s genes and the influence of the environment. The expression of an organism’s genes is usually determined by pairs of alleles. Alleles are
different forms of a gene. In our model, each employee’s formal, hierarchical participation and informal, community participation within the
organization, as influenced by his or her environment, contributes to the overall observable characteristics (phenotype) of the organization. In
other words, just as all the pair of alleles within the genetic material of an organism determines the physical characteristics of the organism, the
combined expressions of all the employees’ formal hierarchical and informal community participation within an organization give rise to the
organizational structure. Due to the vast potentially different combination of the employees’ formal hierarchical and informal community
participation, each organization is therefore a unique phenotype along a spectrum between a pure hierarchy and a pure community (flat)
organizational structure."[31]

"The Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organisational Structure views an organisation as having both a hierarchy and a community
structure, both equally well established and occurring extensively throughout the organisation. On the practical level, it utilises the organizational
chart to study the hierarchical structure which brings across individuals’ roles and formal authority within their designated space at the workplace,
and social network analysis to map out the community structure within the organisation, identifying individuals’ informal influences which usually
do not respect workplace boundaries and at many times extend beyond the workplace."[4]
History

Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical
power structures to industrial structures and today's post-industrial structures.

As pointed out by Lawrence B. Mohr,[32] the early theorists of organizational structure, Taylor, Fayol, and Weber "saw the importance of structure
for effectiveness and efficiency and assumed without the slightest question that whatever structure was needed, people could fashion
accordingly. Organizational structure was considered a matter of choice... When in the 1930s, the rebellion began that came to be known as
human relations theory, there was still not a denial of the idea of structure as an artifact, but rather an advocacy of the creation of a different sort
of structure, one in which the needs, knowledge, and opinions of employees might be given greater recognition." However, a different view arose
in the 1960s, suggesting that the organizational structure is "an externally caused phenomenon, an outcome rather than an artifact."[33]

In the 21st century, organizational theorists such as Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) are once again proposing that organizational structure
development is very much dependent on the expression of the strategies and behavior of the management and the workers as constrained by the
power distribution between them, and influenced by their environment and the outcome.[31]
Military Command and Control
There are correspondences between Mintzberg's organizational archetypes and various approaches to military Command and Control (C2).
Mintzberg's Machine Bureaucracy represents a highly centralized approach to C2, with a narrow allocation of decision rights, restricted patterns of
interaction among organization members, and a restricted flow of information. Mintzberg's Adhocracy, on the other hand, represents a more
networked and less centralized approach to C2, with more individual initiative and self-synchronization. It involves a broader allocation of decision
rights, broader interaction patterns, and broader information distribution. Mintzberg's other organization types (for example, the Professional
Bureaucracy and the Simple Structure) fall in between these two.[34]
Operational and informal
See also: Informal organization and Formal organization

The set organizational structure may not coincide with facts, evolving in operational action. Such divergence decreases performance, when
growing as a wrong organizational structure may hamper cooperation and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of
resources and budgets.

Organizational structures should be adaptive to process requirements, aiming to optimize the ratio of effort and input to output.
Configurations of organizational structure according to Mintzberg
Parts of organization
Diagram, proposed by Henry Mintzberg, showing the main parts of organisation, including technostructure

Henry Mintzberg considers five main parts of organization:[35]

Strategic apex (leaders of organization)

Middle line (managers of lower level)
Operating core (workers of lowest level, directly producing something or providing services)
Technostructure (analysts)
Support staff (helping other members of organisation to perform their function)

An additional element is organisational ideology.[35]

Mechanisms of coordination

Mintzberg considers six main mechanisms of coordination of work:[35]

Mutual adjustment (without formal, standardized mechanisms)

Direct supervision (when one person, leader of organization, gives direct orders to others)
Standardization of work processes (based on the documents that regulate work and are produced by technostructure)
Standardization of outputs (only the results of work are regulated)
Standardization of skills (based on preparing the specialists outside the organization)
Standardization of norms (based on organisation's values, ideology)

Configurations of organizations

Mintzberg considers seven main configurations of organizational structure:[35]

Entrepreneurial organization (strategic apex, direct supervision dominate)

Machine organization (technostructure, standardization of work processes dominate)
Professional organization (operating core, standardization of skills dominate)
Diversified organization (middle level, standardization of outputs dominate)
Innovative organization (support staff, mutual adjustment dominate)
Missionary organization (ideology, standardization of norms dominate)
Political organization (no part or mechanism of coordination dominates)

Entrepreneurial organisation or Simple structure has simple, informal structure.[36] Its leader coordinates the work using direct supervision.[36]
There is no technostructure, little support staff.[37] Such structure is usually found in organizations with environment that is simple (so that one
man could have significant influence), but changing (so that flexibility of one man would give a significant advantage over the bureaucratic
structures).[36]

Machine organisation or Machine bureaucracy has formal rules regulating the work, developed technostructure and middle line, is centralised,
hierarchical.[36] Such structure is common when the work is simple and repetitive.[36] Organizations also tend to achieve such structure when
they are strongly controlled from outside.[36] Also, such structure is common for organizations that perform work that is related to some sort of
control (for example, prisons, police), or organizations with special safety requirements (for example, fire departments, airlines).[36]

Professional configuration or Professional bureaucracy mostly coordinates the work of members of operating core, professionals, through their
training (for example, in university).[36] Operating core in such organisation is large, middle line insignificant, as the professionals perform
complex work and have significant autonomy.[36] Technostructure is also insignificant.[37] Support staff, helping the professionals to do their job,
is numerous.[36] Professionals participate in administrative work, thus there are many committees.[36] Such structure is common for universities,
hospitals, law firms.[36]

Diversified Configuration or Divisionalized form consists of several parts having high autonomy.[36] Such structure is common for old, large
organizations.[36]

Innovative Configuration or Adhocracy gathers the specialists of different fields into teams for specific tasks.[36] Such organizations are common
when environment is complex and dynamic.[36] Mintzberg considers two types of such organization: operating adhocracy and administrative
adhocracy.[36] Operating adhocracy solves innovative problems for its clients.[36] Examples of such organisation can be advertising agency or firm
that develops the prototypes of products.[36] Administrative adhocracy has teams solving problems for the organization itself.[36] As an example
of such organization Mintzberg gives NASA when it worked on Apollo program.[36]

Missionary organisation coordinates the work through organisational ideology.[36] Formal rules in such organization are not numerous.[36] Such
organizations are decentralized, the differences between levels are not significant.[36]

Political configuration happens when the power is mostly used through workplace politics.[36]
Bibliography
 Lawrence B. Mohr, Explaining Organizational Behavior. The Limits and Possibilities of Theory and Research., Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982.

What are the Different Types of Organizations?

 This article on the different types of organizations explores the various categories that organizational structures can fall into.
Organizational structures can be tall, meaning that there are multiple tiers between the entry-level workers and top managers of the
company. They can also be fairly flat, which means that there are very few levels between employees and their manager.

Types of Organizations

At a Glance

In the same way that no two people can ever be the same, no two companies are identical. Although one may come across as having similar
organizational structures within an industry, there will always be subtle differences between the firms.
The main reason for adopting a structure is to outline a clear hierarchy of the different company positions. In such a manner, every
subordinate knows who to report to. Considering how vital an organizational structure is to the different facets of the business, managers should
take their time determining the type of structure to take on. This article highlights the main types of organizations that currently exist.

Flat Organization
 A flat organization is unlike any other corporate structure. It’s exactly as its name suggests. While individuals may hold an expertise,
hierarchy and job titles are not stressed among general employees, senior managers, and executives. In a purely flat organization, everyone
is equal.
Flat organizations are also described as self-managed. The idea behind this organizational structure is to reduce bureaucracy so as to
empower employees to make decisions, become creative problem solvers, and take responsibility for their actions. Since there are minimal or no
levels of middle management, a company that adopts this structure well can end up being more productive by speeding up the decision-making
processes.
Apart from increased productivity, firms with flat organizations have leaner budgets since they don’t involve any pricey middle-
management salaries. The only thing to keep in mind is that this structure works best for small to medium-sized companies. This way, a firm can
decentralize decision-making while still maintaining its corporate integrity.

Functional Organization
 Also referred to as a bureaucratic structure, a functional organization is one that divides a firm’s operations based on specialties. Ideally,
there’s an individual in charge of a particular function. It’s like any typical business that consists of a sales department, human relations,
and marketing department. It means that every employee receives tasks and is accountable to a particular specialist.
A functional organization confers several benefits. For one, there’s a total specialization of work meaning that every employee gets
professional guidance from a specialist. Secondly, work is performed more efficiently since each manager is responsible for a single function. The
only drawback to adopting a functional organization is the fact that there’s a delay in decision-making. All the functional managers must be
consulted when making major decisions, which can take time.

Divisional Organization
 A divisional organization structures its activities around a market, product, or specific group of consumers. For instance, a firm can operate
in the United States or Europe, or sell products focused on a specific group of customers. Gap Inc. is the perfect case in point. It runs three
different retailers – Banana Republic, Gap, and Old Navy. Although each one operates as a separate entity that caters to different
consumer segments, they are all under the company Gap Inc. brand.
 General Electric is another ideal example; it owns numerous firms, brands, and assets across different industries. Although GE is the
umbrella corporation, each division works as an individual firm. The diagram below will give you an idea of what a divisional organization
looks like. General Electric Organizational Chart

Matrix Organization
  A matrix organizational structure is a bit more complex in that there’s more than one line of reporting managers. It simply means that the
employees are accountable to more than one boss. Most firms that take on this organizational structure often have two chains of
command – functional and project managers. However, this organization works best for companies with large-scale projects.
A matrix organization offers several benefits. They include a clear articulation of the company’s mission and objectives, effective
use of limited resources, and retention of professionals throughout the life of a company. Additionally, a matrix structure provides a practical way
of integrating the firm’s objectives with operations.

How to Choose from Different Types of Organizations

 A type of organization serves as a framework that a firm can use to establish authority among employees and communication structures.
However, it is crucial that a company chooses a type that suits its needs best.

1. Size
 Size is a major determining factor when deciding which type of organization to adopt. A small to medium-sized business does not require a
vast and highly-detailed organizational structure. On the other hand, larger companies require more intense frameworks to ensure that
operations run smoothly. Such firms employ more staff; hence, they require more managers. For such companies, a matrix organization is
the most suitable.

2. Life Cycle
 A firm’s life cycle is another essential factor to consider when setting up a company’s organization. Business owners who are trying to grow
and expand their operations should choose a structure that allows for flexibility and smooth expansion.

3. Business Environment
 Another factor that comes into play when determining the type of organization is the external business environment. A dynamic business
setting where the consumers’ needs change constantly requires a stable and sound organizational structure that can weather the storm.

The Importance of Adopting Different Types of Organizations

1. Better Communication
  Keeping open channels of communication is crucial to the success of every organization. As such, an organization needs to be designed in
such a way that individuals and departments are able to coordinate their efforts.

2. Set Organizational Priorities

 A sound organizational structure is essential for setting priorities. In a tall hierarchical structure, the managers and executives determine
the most crucial objectives that need to be met first. The heads of departments can then determine how to allocate different resources
and the specific tasks to designate first.

3. Better Employee Performance

 If a company isn’t well organized, the employees won’t know which tasks to perform or who to report to. Defining the organizational
structure makes the company objectives clear to every stakeholder. In such a way, every employee knows what he or she needs to do.
Depending on the type of organization, senior managers and executives are also able to establish their roles. They can determine whether
they need to actively support their employees or simply assign tasks and await results.

Summary
 Choosing a type of organizational structure is important to a company’s management. It’s therefore crucial that business owners pick the
right organizational type to help operations run more smoothly. There are different types of organizations that a company can adopt such
as functional, flat, matrix, and divisional organizations.
When determining which type of organization to take on, there are several factors that should be taken into account. They include the size
of the company, the business environment, and the life cycle. Although it sounds like a daunting task, establishing an organizational structure is
worthwhile and brings many benefits. For one, it improves communication among a company’s stakeholders. It also helps managers set priorities
right. This way, managers know what resources to allocate to different departments. Finally, it guarantees better employee performance.

Additional Resources
 CFI offers the Financial Modeling & Valuation Analyst (FMVA)™ certification program for those looking to take their careers to the next
level. To keep learning and advancing your career, the following resources will be helpful:
(https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/types-of-organizations/
 Theories on organization and management

What are Management Theories?

Management theories are concepts surrounding recommended management strategies, which may include tools such as frameworks and
guidelines that can be implemented in modern organizations. Generally, professionals will not rely solely on one management theory alone, but
instead, introduce several concepts from different management theories that best suit their workforce and company culture.
Management Theories

At a Glance

Until the day that machines are able to think, talk, and experience emotions, humans will remain the most complicated beings to manage. Humans
can never achieve the kind of error-free performance that machines provide. On the upside, there are tons of things that machines aren’t capable
of doing, making humans indispensable assets. For such reason, proper management is one of the most crucial things for an organization.

For a long time, theorists have been researching the most suitable forms of management for different work settings. This is where management
theories come into play. Although some of these theories were developed centuries ago, they still provide stable frameworks for running
businesses.

Popular Management Theories

1. Scientific Management Theory

American mechanical engineer Frederick Taylor, who was one of the earliest management theorists, pioneered the scientific management theory.
He and his associates were among the first individuals to study work performance scientifically. Taylor’s philosophy emphasized the fact that
forcing people to work hard wasn’t the best way to optimize results. Instead, Taylor recommended simplifying tasks so as to increase productivity.

The strategy was a bit different from how businesses were conducted beforehand. Initially, a factory executive enjoyed minimal, if any, contact
with his employees. There was absolutely no way of standardizing workplace rules and the only motivation of the employees was job security.

According to Taylor, money was the key incentive for working, which is why he developed the “fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work” concept.
Since then, the scientific management theory has been practiced worldwide. The resulting collaboration between employees and employers
evolved into the teamwork that people now enjoy.

2. Systems Management Theory

Systems management offers an alternative approach to the planning and management of organizations. The systems management theory
proposes that businesses, like the human body, consists of multiple components that work harmoniously so that the larger system can function
optimally. According to the theory, the success of an organization depends on several key elements: synergy, interdependence, and interrelations
between various subsystems.

Employees are one of the most important components of a company. Other elements crucial to the success of a business are departments,
workgroups, and business units. In practice, managers are required to evaluate patterns and events in their companies so as to determine the best
management approach. This way, they are able to collaborate on different programs so that they can work as a collective whole rather than as
isolated units.

3. Contingency Management Theory

The main concept behind the contingency management theory is that no one management approach suits every organization. There are several
external and internal factors that will ultimately affect the chosen management approach. The contingency theory identifies three variables that
are likely to influence an organization’s structure: the size of an organization, technology being employed, and style of leadership.

Fred Fiedler is the theorist behind the contingency management theory. Fiedler proposed that the traits of a leader were directly related to how
effectively he led. According to Fiedler’s theory, there’s a set of leadership traits handy for every kind of situation. It means that a leader must be
flexible enough to adapt to the changing environment. The contingency management theory can be summed up as follows:

There is no one specific technique for managing an organization.

A leader should be quick to identify the particular management style suitable for a particular situation.

The primary component of Fiedler’s contingency theory is LPC – the least preferred co-worker scale. LPC is used to assess how well oriented a
manager is.

4. Theory X and Theory Y

Do you believe that every individual gets maximum satisfaction from the work they do? Or are you of the opinion that some view work as a burden
and only do it for the money? Such assumptions influence how an organization is run. The assumptions also form the basis of Theory X and Theory
Y.

Douglas McGregor is the theorist credited with developing these two contrasting concepts. More specifically, these theories refer to two
management styles: the authoritarian (Theory X) and participative (Theory Y).

In an organization where team members show little passion for their work, leaders are likely to employ the authoritarian style of management. But
if employees demonstrate a willingness to learn and are enthusiastic about what they do, their leader is likely to use participative management.
The management style that a manager adopts will influence just how well he can keep his team members motivated.

Theory X holds a pessimistic view of employees in the sense that they cannot work in the absence of incentives. Theory Y, on the other hand, holds
an optimistic opinion of employees. The latter theory proposes that employees and managers can achieve a collaborative and trust-based
relationship.

Still, there are a couple of instances where Theory X can be applied. For instance, large corporations that hire thousands of employees for routine
work may find adopting this form of management ideal.
Popular Management Theories
Why Study Management Theories?

1. Increasing Productivity

One of the reasons why managers should be interested in learning management theories is because it helps in maximizing their productivity.
Ideally, the theories teach leaders how to make the most of the human assets at their disposal. So, rather than purchase new equipment or invest
in a new marketing strategy, business owners need to invest in their employees through training.

It can be seen in Taylor’s scientific management theory. As mentioned earlier, Taylor proposed that the best way to boost workers’ productivity
was by first observing their work processes and then creating the best policies.

2. Simplifying Decision Making

Another area where management theories have proven to be useful is in the decision-making process. Max Weber proposed that hierarchical
systems encourage informed decision-making. A report written by the Institute for Employment Studies suggests that flattening the hierarchy
paves the way for local innovation while speeding up the decision-making process. Flattening out entails getting rid of job titles and senior
positions so as to inspire a cohesive work environment.
3. Encouraging Staff Participation

Management theories developed in the 1900s, aimed at encouraging interpersonal relationships in the workplace. One such theory that
encouraged a collaborative environment is the human relations approach. According to this theory, business owners needed to give their
employees more power in making decisions.

(https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/careers/soft-skills/management-theories/)

Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational

structures, processes, practices, and decision makers’ sexism

Cailin S. Stamarski† and Leanne S. Son Hing*†

 Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada

Gender inequality in organizations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in organizational structures, processes, and practices. For women,
some of the most harmful gender inequalities are enacted within human resources (HRs) practices. This is because HR practices (i.e., policies,
decision-making, and their enactment) affect the hiring, training, pay, and promotion of women. We propose a model of gender discrimination in
HR that emphasizes the reciprocal nature of gender inequalities within organizations. We suggest that gender discrimination in HR-related decision-
making and in the enactment of HR practices stems from gender inequalities in broader organizational structures, processes, and practices. This
includes leadership, structure, strategy, culture, organizational climate, as well as HR policies. In addition, organizational decision makers’ levels of
sexism can affect their likelihood of making gender biased HR-related decisions and/or behaving in a sexist manner while enacting HR practices.
Importantly, institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices play a pre-eminent role because not only do they affect
HR practices, they also provide a socializing context for organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. Although we
portray gender inequality as a self-reinforcing system that can perpetuate discrimination, important levers for reducing discrimination are identified.

Introduction

The workplace has sometimes been referred to as an inhospitable place for women due to the multiple forms of gender inequalities present (e.g.,
Abrams, 1991). Some examples of how workplace discrimination negatively affects women’s earnings and opportunities are the gender wage gap
(e.g., Peterson and Morgan, 1995), the dearth of women in leadership (Eagly and Carli, 2007), and the longer time required for women (vs. men) to
advance in their careers (Blau and DeVaro, 2007). In other words, workplace discrimination contributes to women’s lower socio-economic status.
Importantly, such discrimination against women largely can be attributed to human resources (HR) policies and HR-related decision-making.
Furthermore, when employees interact with organizational decision makers during HR practices, or when they are told the outcomes of HR-related
decisions, they may experience personal discrimination in the form of sexist comments. Both the objective disadvantages of lower pay, status, and
opportunities at work, and the subjective experiences of being stigmatized, affect women’s psychological and physical stress, mental and physical
health (Goldenhar et al., 1998; Adler et al., 2000; Schmader et al., 2008; Borrel et al., 2010),job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Hicks-
Clarke and Iles, 2000), and ultimately, their performance (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001).

Within this paper, we delineate the nature of discrimination within HR policies, decisions, and their enactment, as well as explore the causes of such
discrimination in the workplace. Our model is shown in Figure Figure11. In the Section “Discrimination in HR Related Practices: HR Policy,
Decisions, and their Enactment,” we explain the distinction between HR policy, HR-related decision-making, and HR enactment and their relations
to each other. Gender inequalities in HR policy are a form of institutional discrimination. We review evidence of institutional discrimination against
women within HR policies set out to determine employee selection, performance evaluations, and promotions. In contrast, discrimination in HR-
related decisions and their enactment can result from organizational decision makers’ biased responses: it is a form of personal discrimination.
Finally, we provide evidence of personal discrimination against women by organizational decision makers in HR-related decision-making and in the
enactment of HR policies.
Open in a separate window

FIGURE 1
A model of the root causes of gender discrimination in HR policies, decision-making, and enactment.

In the Section “The Effect of Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices on HR Practices,” we focus on the link between institutional
discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices that can lead to personal discrimination in HR practices (see Figure 1). Inspired
by the work of Gelfand et al. (2007), we propose that organizational structures, processes, and practices (i.e., leadership, structure, strategy, culture,
climate, and HR policy) are interrelated and may contribute to discrimination. Accordingly, gender inequalities in each element can affect the others,
creating a self-reinforcing system that can perpetuate institutional discrimination throughout the organization and that can lead to discrimination in
HR policies, decision-making, and enactment. We also propose that these relations between gender inequalities in the organizational structures,
processes, and practices and discrimination in HR practices can be bidirectional (see Figure 1). Thus, we also review how HR practices can
contribute to gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices.

In the Section “The Effect of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism on How Organizational Decision Makers’ Conduct HR Practices,” we delineate the
link between organizational decision makers’ levels of sexism and their likelihood of making gender-biased HR-related decisions and/or behaving in
a sexist manner when enacting HR policies (e.g., engaging in gender harassment). We focus on two forms of sexist attitudes: hostile and benevolent
sexism (Glick and Fiske, 1996). Hostile sexism involves antipathy toward, and negative stereotypes about, agentic women. In contrast, benevolent
sexism involves positive but paternalistic views of women as highly communal. Whereas previous research on workplace discrimination has focused
on forms of sexism that are hostile in nature, we extend this work by explaining how benevolent sexism, which is more subtle, can also contribute in
meaningful yet distinct ways to gender discrimination in HR practices.

In the Section “The Effect of Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices on Organizational Decision Makers’ Levels of Hostile and
Benevolent Sexism,” we describe how institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices play a critical role in our
model because not only do they affect HR-related decisions and the enactment of HR policies, they also provide a socializing context for
organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. In other words, where more institutional discrimination is present, we can
expect higher levels of sexism—a third link in our model—which leads to gender bias in HR practices.

In the Section “How to Reduce Gender Discrimination in Organizations,” we discuss how organizations can reduce gender discrimination. We
suggest that, to reduce discrimination, organizations should focus on: HR practices, other closely related organizational structures, processes, and
practices, and the reduction of organizational decision makers’ level of sexism. Organizations should take such a multifaceted approach because,
consistent with our model, gender discrimination is a result of a complex interplay between these factors. Therefore, a focus on only one factor may
not be as effective if all the other elements in the model continue to promote gender inequality.

The model we propose for understanding gender inequalities at work is, of course, limited and not intended to be exhaustive. First, we only focus on
women’s experience of discrimination. Although men also face discrimination, the focus of this paper is on women because they are more often
targets (Branscombe, 1998; Schmitt et al., 2002; McLaughlin et al., 2012) and discrimination is more psychologically damaging for women than for
men (Barling et al., 1996; Schmitt et al., 2002). Furthermore, we draw on research from Western, individualistic countries conducted between the
mid-1980s to the mid-2010s that might not generalize to other countries or time frames. In addition, this model derives from research that has been
conducted primarily in sectors dominated by men. This is because gender discrimination (Mansfield et al., 1991; Welle and Heilman, 2005) and
harassment (Mansfield et al., 1991; Berdhal, 2007) against women occur more in environments dominated by men. Now that we have outlined the
sections of the paper and our model, we now turn to delineating how gender discrimination in the workplace can be largely attributed to HR
practices.

Discrimination in HR Related Practices: HR Policy, Decisions, and their Enactment

In this section, we explore the nature of gender discrimination in HR practices, which involves HR policies, HR-related decision-making, and their
enactment by organizational decision makers. HR is a system of organizational practices aimed at managing employees and ensuring that they are
accomplishing organizational goals (Wright et al., 1994). HR functions include: selection, performance evaluation, leadership succession, and
training. Depending on the size and history of the organization, HR systems can range from those that are well structured and supported by an entire
department, led by HR specialists, to haphazard sets of policies and procedures enacted by managers and supervisors without formal training. HR
practices are critically important because they determine the access employees have to valued reward and outcomes within an organization, and can
also influence their treatment within an organization (Levitin et al., 1971).

Human resource practices can be broken down into formal HR policy, HR-related decision-making, and the enactment of HR policies and decisions.
HR policy codifies practices for personnel functions, performance evaluations, employee relations, and resource planning (Wright et al., 1994). HR-
related decision-making occurs when organizational decision makers (i.e., managers, supervisors, or HR personnel) employ HR policy to determine
how it will be applied to a particular situation and individual. The enactment of HR involves the personal interactions between organizational
decision makers and job candidates or employees when HR policies are applied. Whereas HR policy can reflect institutional discrimination, HR-
related decision-making and enactment can reflect personal discrimination by organizational decision makers.
Institutional Discrimination in HR Policy

Human resource policies that are inherently biased against a group of people, regardless of their job-related knowledge, skills, abilities, and
performance can be termed institutional discrimination. Institutional discrimination against women can occur in each type of HR policy from the
recruitment and selection of an individual into an organization, through his/her role assignments, training, pay, performance evaluations, promotion,
and termination. For instance, if women are under-represented in a particular educational program or a particular job type and those credentials or
previous job experience are required to be considered for selection, women are being systematically, albeit perhaps not intentionally, discriminated
against. In another example, there is gender discrimination if a test is used in the selection battery for which greater gender differences emerge, than
those that emerge for job performance ratings (Hough et al., 2001). Thus, institutional discrimination can be present within various aspects of HR
selection policy, and can negatively affect women’s work outcomes.

Institutional discrimination against women also occurs in performance evaluations that are used to determine organizational rewards (e.g.,
compensation), opportunities (e.g., promotion, role assignments), and punishments (e.g., termination). Gender discrimination can be formalized into
HR policy if criteria used by organizational decision makers to evaluate job performance systematically favor men over women. For instance, “face
time” is a key performance metric that rewards employees who are at the office more than those who are not. Given that women are still the primary
caregivers (Acker, 1990; Fuegen et al., 2004), women use flexible work arrangements more often than men and, consequently, face career penalties
because they score lower on face time (Glass, 2004). Thus, biased criteria in performance evaluation policies can contribute to gender
discrimination.

Human resource policies surrounding promotions and opportunities for advancement are another area of concern. In organizations with more formal
job ladders that are used to dictate and constrain workers’ promotion opportunities, women are less likely to advance (Perry et al., 1994). This occurs
because job ladders tend to be divided by gender, and as such, gender job segregation that is seen at entry-level positions will be strengthened as
employees move up their specific ladder with no opportunity to cross into other lines of advancement. Thus, women will lack particular job
experiences that are not available within their specific job ladders, making them unqualified for advancement (De Pater et al., 2010).

In sum, institutional discrimination can be present within HR policies set out to determine employee selection, performance evaluations, and
promotions. These policies can have significant effects on women’s careers. However, HR policy can only be used to guide HR-related decision-
making. In reality, it is organizational decision-makers, that is, managers, supervisors, HR personnel who, guided by policy, must evaluate job
candidates or employees and decide how policy will be applied to individuals.
Personal Discrimination in HR-Related Decision-Making

The practice of HR-related decision-making involves social cognition in which others’ competence, potential, and deservingness are assessed by
organizational decision makers. Thus, like all forms of social cognition, HR-related decision-making is open to personal biases. HR-related
decisions are critically important because they determine women’s pay and opportunities at work (e.g., promotions, training opportunities). Personal
discrimination against women by organizational decision makers can occur in each stage of HR-related decision-making regarding recruitment and
selection, role assignments, training opportunities, pay, performance evaluation, promotion, and termination.

Studies with varying methodologies show that women face personal discrimination when going through the selection process (e.g., Goldberg, 1968;
Rosen and Jerdee, 1974). Meta-analyses reveal that, when being considered for male-typed (i.e., male dominated, believed-to-be-for-men) jobs,
female candidates are evaluated more negatively and recommended for employment less often by study participants, compared with matched male
candidates (e.g., Hunter et al., 1982; Tosi and Einbender, 1985; Olian et al., 1988; Davison and Burke, 2000). For example, in audit studies, which
involve sending ostensibly real applications for job openings while varying the gender of the applicant, female applicants are less likely to be
interviewed or called back, compared with male applicants (e.g., McIntyre et al., 1980; Firth, 1982). In a recent study, male and female biology,
chemistry, and physics professors rated an undergraduate science student for a laboratory manager position (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). The male
applicant was rated as significantly more competent and hireable, offered a higher starting salary (about $4000), and offered more career mentoring
than the female applicant was. In summary, women face a distinct disadvantage when being considered for male-typed jobs.

There is ample evidence that women experience biased performance evaluations on male-typed tasks. A meta-analysis of experimental studies
reveals that women in leadership positions receive lower performance evaluations than matched men; this is amplified when women act in a
stereotypically masculine, that is, agentic fashion (Eagly et al., 1992). Further, in masculine domains, women are held to a higher standard of
performance than men are. For example, in a study of military cadets, men and women gave their peers lower ratings if they were women, despite
having objectively equal qualifications to men (Boldry et al., 2001). Finally, women are evaluated more poorly in situations that involve complex
problem solving; in these situations, people are skeptical regarding women’s expertise and discredit expert women’s opinions but give expert men
the benefit of the doubt (Thomas-Hunt and Phillips, 2004).

Sometimes particular types of women are more likely to be discriminated against in selection and performance evaluation decisions. Specifically,
agentic women, that is, those who behave in an assertive, task-oriented fashion, are rated as less likeable and less hireable than comparable agentic
male applicants (Heilman and Okimoto, 2007; Rudman and Phelan, 2008; Rudman et al., 2012). In addition, there is evidence of discrimination
against pregnant women when they apply for jobs (Hebl et al., 2007; Morgan et al., 2013). Further, women who are mothers are recommended for
promotion less than women who are not mothers or men with or without children (Heilman and Okimoto, 2008). Why might people discriminate
specifically against agentic women and pregnant women or mothers, who are seemingly very different? The stereotype content model, accounts for
how agentic women, who are perceived to be high in competence and low in warmth, will be discriminated against because of feelings of
competition; whereas, pregnant women and mothers, who are seen as low in competence, but high in warmth, will be discriminated against because
of a perceived lack of deservingness (Fiske et al., 1999, 2002; Cuddy et al., 2004). Taken together, research has uncovered that different forms of
bias toward specific subtypes of women have the same overall effect—bias in selection and performance evaluation decisions.

Women are also likely to receive fewer opportunities at work, compared with men, resulting in their under-representation at higher levels of
management and leadership within organizations (Martell et al., 1996; Eagly and Carli, 2007). Managers give women fewer challenging roles and
fewer training opportunities, compared with men (King et al., 2012; Glick, 2013). For instance, female managers (Lyness and Thompson, 1997) and
midlevel workers (De Pater et al., 2010) have less access to high-level responsibilities and challenges that are precursors to promotion. Further, men
are more likely to be given key leadership assignments in male-dominated fields and in female-dominated fields (e.g., Maume, 1999; De Pater et al.,
2010). This is detrimental given that challenging roles, especially developmental ones, help employees gain important skills needed to excel in their
careers (Spreitzer et al., 1997).

Furthermore, managers rate women as having less promotion potential than men (Roth et al., 2012). Given the same level of qualifications,
managers are less likely to grant promotions to women, compared with men (Lazear and Rosen, 1990). Thus, men have a faster ascent in
organizational hierarchies than women (Cox and Harquail, 1991; Stroh et al., 1992; Blau and DeVaro, 2007). Even minimal amounts of gender
discrimination in promotion decisions for a particular job or level can have large, cumulative effects given the pyramid structure of most hierarchical
organizations (Martell et al., 1996; Baxter and Wright, 2000). Therefore, discrimination by organizational decision makers results in the under-
promotion of women.

Finally, women are underpaid, compared with men. In a comprehensive US study using data from 1983 to 2000, after controlling for human capital
factors that could affect wages (e.g., education level, work experience), the researchers found that women were paid 22% less than men (U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 2003). Further, within any given occupation, men typically have higher wages than women; this “within-
occupation” wage gap is especially prominent in more highly paid occupations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). In a study of over 2000 managers,
women were compensated less than men were, even after controlling for a number of human capital factors (Ostroff and Atwater, 2003).
Experimental work suggests that personal biases by organizational decision makers contribute to the gender wage gap. When participants are asked
to determine starting salaries for matched candidates that differ by gender, they pay men more (e.g., Steinpreis et al., 1999; Moss-Racusin et al.,
2012). Such biases are consequential because starting salaries determine life-time earnings (Gerhart and Rynes, 1991). In experimental studies, when
participants evaluate a man vs. a woman who is matched on job performance, they choose to compensate men more (Marini, 1989; Durden and
Gaynor, 1998; Lips, 2003). Therefore, discrimination in HR-related decision-making by organizational decision makers can contribute to women
being paid less than men are.

Taken together, we have shown that there is discrimination against women in decision-making related to HR. These biases from organizational
decision makers can occur in each stage of HR-related decision-making and these biased HR decisions have been shown to negatively affect
women’s pay and opportunities at work. In the next section, we review how biased HR practices are enacted, which can involve gender harassment.

Personal Discrimination in HR Enactment

By HR enactment, we refer to those situations where current or prospective employees go through HR processes or when they receive news of their
outcomes from organizational decision makers regarding HR-related issues. Personal gender discrimination can occur when employees are given
sexist messages, by organizational decision makers, related to HR enactment. More specifically, this type of personal gender discrimination is
termed gender harassment, and consists of a range of verbal and non-verbal behaviors that convey sexist, insulting, or hostile attitudes about women
(Fitzgerald et al., 1995a,b). Gender harassment is the most common form of sex-based discrimination (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Schneider et al.,
1997). For example, across the military in the United States, 52% of the 9,725 women surveyed reported that they had experienced gender
harassment in the last year (Leskinen et al., 2011, Study 1). In a random sample of attorneys from a large federal judicial circuit, 32% of the 1,425
women attorneys surveyed had experienced gender harassment in the last 5 years (Leskinen et al., 2011, Study 2). When examining women’s
experiences of gender harassment, 60% of instances were perpetrated by their supervisor/manager or a person in a leadership role (cf. Crocker and
Kalemba, 1999; McDonald et al., 2008). Thus, personal discrimination in the form of gender harassment is a common behavior; however, is it one
that organizational decision makers engage in when enacting HR processes and outcomes?

Although it might seem implausible that organizational decision makers would convey sexist sentiments to women when giving them the news of
HR-related decisions, there have been high-profile examples from discrimination lawsuits where this has happened. For example, in a class action
lawsuit against Walmart, female workers claimed they were receiving fewer promotions than men despite superior qualifications and records of
service. In that case, the district manager was accused of confiding to some of the women who were overlooked for promotions that they were
passed over because he was not in favor of women being in upper management positions (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 2004/2011). In addition,
audit studies, wherein matched men and women apply to real jobs, have revealed that alongside discrimination (McIntyre et al., 1980; Firth, 1982;
Moss-Racusin et al., 2012), women experience verbal gender harassment when applying for sex atypical jobs, such as sexist comments as well as
skeptical or discouraging responses from hiring staff (Neumark, 1996). Finally, gender harassment toward women when HR policies are enacted can
also take the form of offensive comments and denying women promotions due to pregnancy or the chance of pregnancy. For example, in Moore v.
Alabama, an employee was 8 months pregnant and the woman’s supervisor allegedly looked at her belly and said “I was going to make you head of
the office, but look at you now” (Moore v. Alabama State University, 1996, p. 431; Williams, 2003). Thus, organizational decision makers will at
times convey sexist sentiments to women when giving them the news of HR-related decisions.

Interestingly, whereas discrimination in HR policy and in HR-related decision-making is extremely difficult to detect (Crosby et al., 1986; Major,
1994), gender harassment in HR enactment provides direct cues to recipients that discrimination is occurring. In other words, although women’s
lives are negatively affected in concrete ways by discrimination in HR policy and decisions (e.g., not receiving a job, being underpaid), they may not
perceive their negative outcomes as due to gender discrimination. Indeed, there is a multitude of evidence that women and other stigmatized group
members are loath to make attributions to discrimination (Crosby, 1984; Vorauer and Kumhyr, 2001; Stangor et al., 2003) and instead are likely to
make internal attributions for negative evaluations unless they are certain the evaluator is biased against their group (Ruggiero and Taylor, 1995;
Major et al., 2003). However, when organizational decision makers engage in gender harassment during HR enactment women should be more
likely to interpret HR policy and HR-related decisions as discriminatory.

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

The Effect of Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices on HR Practices

The first contextual factor within which gender inequalities can be institutionalized is leadership. Leadership is a process wherein an individual (e.g.,
CEOs, managers) influences others in an effort to reach organizational goals (Chemers, 1997; House and Aditya, 1997). Leaders determine and
communicate what the organization’s priorities are to all members of the organization. Leaders are important as they affect the other organizational
structures, processes, and practices. Specifically, leaders set culture, set policy, set strategy, and are role models for socialization. We suggest that
one important way institutional gender inequality in leadership exists is when women are under-represented, compared with men—particularly when
women are well-represented at lower levels within an organization.
An underrepresentation of women in leadership can be perpetuated easily because the gender of organizational leaders affects the degree to which
there is gender discrimination, gender supportive policies, and a gender diversity supportive climate within an organization (Ostroff et al., 2012).
Organizational members are likely to perceive that the climate for women is positive when women hold key positions in the organization (Konrad et
al., 2010). Specifically, the presence of women in key positions acts as a vivid symbol indicating that the organization supports gender diversity.
Consistent with this, industries that have fewer female high status managers have a greater gender wage gap (Cohen and Huffman, 2007). Further,
women who work with a male supervisor perceive less organizational support, compared with those who work with a female supervisor (Konrad et
al., 2010). In addition, women who work in departments that are headed by a man report experiencing more gender discrimination, compared with
their counterparts in departments headed by women (Konrad et al., 2010). Some of these effects may be mediated by a similar-to-me bias (Tsui and
O’Reilly, 1989), where leaders set up systems that reward and promote individuals like themselves, which can lead to discrimination toward women
when leaders are predominantly male (Davison and Burke, 2000; Roth et al., 2012). Thus, gender inequalities in leadership affect women’s
experiences in the workplace and their likelihood of facing discrimination.

The second contextual factor to consider is organizational structure. The formal structure of an organization is how an organization arranges itself
and it consists of employee hierarchies, departments, etc. (Grant, 2010). An example of institutional discrimination in the formal structure of an
organization are job ladders, which are typically segregated by gender (Perry et al., 1994). Such gender-segregated job ladders typically exist within
different departments of the organization. Women belonging to gender-segregated networks within organizations (Brass, 1985) have less access to
information about jobs, less status, and less upward mobility within the organization (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989; McDonald et al., 2009). This is
likely because in gender-segregated networks, women have less visibility and lack access to individuals with power (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989).
In gender-segregated networks, it is also difficult for women to find female mentors because there is a lack of women in high-ranking positions
(Noe, 1988; Linehan and Scullion, 2008). Consequently, the organizational structure can be marked by gender inequalities that reduce women’s
chances of reaching top-level positions in an organization.

Gender inequalities can be inherent in the structure of an organization when there are gender segregated departments, job ladders, and networks,
which are intimately tied to gender discrimination in HR practices. For instance, if HR policies are designed such that pay is determined based on
comparisons between individuals only within a department (e.g., department-wide reporting structure, job descriptions, performance evaluations),
then this can lead to a devaluation of departments dominated by women. The overrepresentation of women in certain jobs leads to the lower status of
those jobs; consequently, the pay brackets for these jobs decrease over time as the number of women in these jobs increase (e.g., Huffman and
Velasco, 1997; Reilly and Wirjanto, 1999). Similarly, networks led by women are also devalued for pay. For example, in a study of over 2,000
managers, after controlling for performance, the type of job, and the functional area (e.g., marketing, sales, accounting), those who worked with
female mangers had lower wages than those who worked with male managers (Ostroff and Atwater, 2003). Thus, gender inequalities in an
organization’s structure in terms of gender segregation have reciprocal effects with gender discrimination in HR policy and decision-making.

Another contextual factor in our model is organizational strategy and how institutional discrimination within strategy is related to discrimination in
HR practices. Strategy is a plan, method, or process by which an organization attempts to achieve its objectives, such as being profitable,
maintaining and expanding its consumer base, marketing strategy, etc. (Grant, 2010). Strategy can influence the level of inequality within an
organization (Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990; Hunter et al., 2001). For example, Hooters, a restaurant chain, has a marketing strategy to sexually
attract heterosexual males, which has led to discrimination in HR policy, decisions, and enactment because only young, good-looking women are
considered qualified (Schneyer, 1998). When faced with appearance-based discrimination lawsuits regarding their hiring policies, Hooters has
responded by claiming that such appearance requirements are bona fide job qualifications given their marketing strategy (for reviews, see Schneyer,
1998; Adamitis, 2000). Hooters is not alone, as many other establishments attempt to attract male cliental by requiring their female servers to meet a
dress code involving a high level of grooming (make-up, hair), a high heels requirement, and a revealing uniform (McGinley, 2007). Thus, sexist
HR policies and practices in which differential standards are applied to male and female employees can stem from a specific organizational strategy
(Westall, 2015).

We now consider institutional gender bias within organizational culture and how it relates to discrimination in HR policies. Organizational culture
refers to collectively held beliefs, assumptions, and values held by organizational members (Trice and Beyer, 1993; Schein, 2010). Cultures arise
from the values of the founders of the organization and assumptions about the right way of doing things, which are learned from dealing with
challenges over time (Ostroff et al., 2012). The founders and leaders of an organization are the most influential in forming, maintaining, and
changing culture over time (e.g., Trice and Beyer, 1993; Jung et al., 2008; Hartnell and Walumbwa, 2011). Organizational culture can contribute to
gender inequalities because culture constrains people’s ideas of what is possible: their strategies of action (Swidler, 1986). In other words, when
people encounter a problem in their workplace, the organizational culture—who we are, how we act, what is right—will provide only a certain realm
of behavioral responses. For instance, in organizational cultures marked by greater gender inequality, women may have lower hopes and
expectations for promotion, and when they are discriminated against, may be less likely to imagine that they can appeal their outcomes (Kanter,
1977; Cassirer and Reskin, 2000). Furthermore, in organizational cultures marked by gender inequality, organizational decision makers should hold
stronger descriptive and proscriptive gender stereotypes: they should more strongly believe that women have less ability to lead, less career
commitment, and less emotional stability, compared with men (Eagly et al., 1992; Heilman, 2001). We expand upon this point later.
Other aspects of organizational culture that are less obviously related to gender can also lead to discrimination in HR practices. For instance, an
organizational culture that emphasizes concerns with meritocracy, can lead organizational members to oppose HR efforts to increase gender
equality. This is because when people believe that outcomes ought to go only to those who are most deserving, it is easy for them to fall into the trap
of believing that outcomes currently do go to those who are most deserving (Son Hing et al., 2011). Therefore, people will believe that men deserve
their elevated status and women deserve their subordinated status at work (Castilla and Benard, 2010). Furthermore, the more people care about
merit-based outcomes, the more they oppose affirmative action and diversity initiatives for women (Bobocel et al., 1998; Son Hing et al., 2011),
particularly when they do not recognize that discrimination occurs against women in the absence of such policies (Son Hing et al., 2002). Thus, a
particular organizational culture can influence the level of discrimination against women in HR and prevent the adoption of HR policies that would
mitigate gender discrimination.

Finally, gender inequalities can be seen in organizational climates. An organizational climate consists of organizational members’ shared perceptions
of the formal and informal organizational practices, procedures, and routines (Schneider et al., 2011) that arise from direct experiences of the
organization’s culture (Ostroff et al., 2012). Organizational climates tend to be conceptualized and studied as “climates for” an organizational
strategy (Schneider, 1975; Ostroff et al., 2012). Gender inequalities are most clearly reflected in two forms of climate: climates for diversity and
climates for sexual harassment.

A positive climate for diversity exists when organizational members perceive that diverse groups are included, empowered, and treated fairly. When
employees perceive a less supportive diversity climate, they perceive greater workplace discrimination (Cox, 1994; Ragins and Cornwall, 2001;
Triana and García, 2009), and experience lower organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Hicks-Clarke and Iles, 2000), and higher turnover
intentions (Triana et al., 2010). Thus, in organizations with a less supportive diversity climate, women are more likely to leave the organization,
which contributes to the underrepresentation of women in already male-dominated arenas (Miner-Rubino and Cortina, 2004).

A climate for sexual harassment involves perceptions that the organization is permissive of sexual harassment. In organizational climates that are
permissive of harassment, victims are reluctant to come forward because they believe that their complaints will not be taken seriously (Hulin et al.,
1996) and will result in negative personal consequences (e.g., Offermann and Malamut, 2002). Furthermore, men with a proclivity for harassment
are more likely to act out these behaviors when permissive factors are present (Pryor et al., 1993). Therefore, a permissive climate for sexual
harassment can result in more harassing behaviors, which can lead women to disengage from their work and ultimately leave the organization (Kath
et al., 2009).
Organizational climates for diversity and for sexual harassment are inextricably linked to HR practices. For instance, a factor that leads to
perceptions of diversity climates is whether the HR department has diversity training (seminars, workshops) and how much time and money is
devoted to diversity efforts (Triana and García, 2009). Similarly, a climate for sexual harassment depends on organizational members’ perceptions
of how strict the workplace’s sexual harassment policy is, and how likely offenders are to be punished (Fitzgerald et al., 1995b; Hulin et al., 1996).
Thus, HR policies, decision-making, and their enactment strongly affect gender inequalities in organizational climates and gender inequalities
throughout an organization.

In summary, gender inequalities can exist within organizational structures, processes, and practices. However, organizational leadership, structure,
strategy, culture, and climate do not inherently need to be sexist. It could be possible for these organizational structures, processes, and practices to
promote gender equality. We return to this issue in the conclusion section.

The Effect of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism on How Organizational Decision Makers’
Conduct HR Practices

In this section, we explore how personal biases can affect personal discrimination in HR-related decisions and their enactment. Others have focused
on how negative or hostile attitudes toward women predict discrimination in the workplace. However, we extend this analysis by drawing on
ambivalent sexism theory, which involves hostile sexism (i.e., antagonistic attitudes toward women) and benevolent sexism (i.e., paternalistic
attitudes toward women; see also Glick, 2013), both of which lead to discrimination against women.

Stereotyping processes are one possible explanation of how discrimination against women in male-typed jobs occurs and how women are relegated
to the “pink ghetto” (Heilman, 1983; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Rudman et al., 2012). Gender stereotypes, that is, expectations of what women and
men are like, and what they should be like, are one of the most powerful schemas activated when people encounter others (Fiske et al., 1991;
Stangor et al., 1992). According to status characteristics theory, people’s group memberships convey important information about their status and
their competence on specific tasks (Berger et al., 1974; Berger et al., 1998; Correll and Ridgeway, 2003). Organizational decision makers will, for
many jobs, have different expectations for men’s and women’s competence and job performance. Expectations of stereotyped-group members’
success can affect gender discrimination that occurs in HR-related decisions and enactment (Roberson et al., 2007). For example, men are preferred
over women for masculine jobs and women are preferred over men for feminine jobs (Davison and Burke, 2000). Thus, the more that a workplace
role is inconsistent with the attributes ascribed to women, the more a particular woman might be seen as lacking “fit” with that role, resulting in
decreased performance expectations (Heilman, 1983; Eagly and Karau, 2002).

Furthermore, because women are associated with lower status, and men with higher status, women experience backlash for pursuing high status
roles (e.g., leadership) in the workplace (Rudman et al., 2012). In other words, agentic women who act competitively and confidently in a leadership
role, are rated as more socially deficient, less likeable and less hireable, compared with men who act the same way (Rudman, 1998; Rudman et al.,
2012). Interestingly though, if women pursue roles in the workplace that are congruent with traditional gender expectations, they will elicit positive
reactions (Eagly and Karau, 2002).

Thus, cultural, widely known, gender stereotypes can affect HR-related decisions. However, such an account does not take into consideration
individual differences among organizational decision makers (e.g., managers, supervisors, or HR personnel) who may vary in the extent to which
they endorse sexist attitudes or stereotypes. Individual differences in various forms of sexism (e.g., modern sexism, neosexism) have been
demonstrated to lead to personal discrimination in the workplace (Hagen and Kahn, 1975; Beaton et al., 1996; Hitlan et al., 2009). Ambivalent
sexism theory builds on earlier theories of sexism by including attitudes toward women that, while sexist, are often experienced as positive in
valence by perceivers and targets (Glick and Fiske, 1996). Therefore, we draw on ambivalent sexism theory, which conceptualizes sexism as a
multidimensional construct that encompasses both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward women (Glick and Fiske, 1996, 2001).

Hostile sexism involves antipathy and negative stereotypes about women, such as beliefs that women are incompetent, overly emotional, and
sexually manipulative. Hostile sexism also involves beliefs that men should be more powerful than women and fears that women will try to take
power from men (Glick and Fiske, 1996; Cikara et al., 2008). In contrast, benevolent sexism involves overall positive views of women, as long as
they occupy traditionally feminine roles. Individuals with benevolently sexist beliefs characterize women as weak and needing protection, support,
and adoration. Importantly, hostile and benevolent sexism tend to go hand-in-hand (with a typical correlation of 0.40; Glick et al., 2000). This is
because ambivalent sexists, people who are high in benevolent and hostile sexism, believe that women should occupy restricted domestic roles and
that women are weaker than men are (Glick and Fiske, 1996). Ambivalent sexists reconcile their potentially contradictory attitudes about women by
acting hostile toward women whom they believe are trying to steal men’s power (e.g., feminists, professionals who show competence) and by acting
benevolently toward traditional women (e.g., homemakers) who reinforce conventional gender relations and who serve men (Glick et al., 1997). An
individual difference approach allows us to build on the earlier models (Heilman, 1983; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Rudman et al., 2012), by specifying
who is more likely to discriminate against women and why.
Organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in hostile sexism should discriminate more against women in HR-related decisions (Glick
et al., 1997; Masser and Abrams, 2004). For instance, people high in hostile sexism have been found to evaluate candidates, who are believed to be
women, more negatively and give lower employment recommendations for a management position, compared with matched candidates believed to
be men (Salvaggio et al., 2009)1. In another study, among participants who evaluated a female candidate for a managerial position, those higher in
hostile sexism were less likely to recommend her for hire, compared with those lower in hostile sexism (Masser and Abrams, 2004). Interestingly,
among those evaluating a matched man for the same position, those higher (vs. lower) in hostile sexism were more likely to recommend him for hire
(Masser and Abrams, 2004). According to ambivalent sexism theorists (Glick et al., 1997), because people high in hostile sexism see women as a
threat to men’s status, they act as gatekeepers denying women access to more prestigious or masculine jobs.

Furthermore, when enacting HR policies and decisions, organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in hostile sexism should
discriminate more against women in the form of gender harassment. Gender harassment can involve hostile terms of address, negative comments
regarding women in management, sexist jokes, and sexist behavior (Fitzgerald et al., 1995a,b). It has been found that people higher (vs. lower) in
hostile sexism have more lenient attitudes toward the sexual harassment of women, which involves gender harassment, in the workplace (Begany
and Milburn, 2002; Russell and Trigg, 2004). Furthermore, men who more strongly believe that women are men’s adversaries tell more sexist jokes
to a woman (Mitchell et al., 2004). Women also report experiencing more incivility (i.e., low level, rude behavior) in the workplace than men
(Björkqvist et al., 1994; Cortina et al., 2001, 2002), which could be due to hostile attitudes toward women. In summary, the evidence is consistent
with the idea that organizational decision makers’ hostile sexism should predict their gender harassing behavior during HR enactment; however,
more research is needed for such a conclusion.

In addition, organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism should discriminate more against women when making
HR-related decisions. It has been found that people higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism are more likely to automatically associate men with
high-authority and women with low-authority roles and to implicitly stereotype men as agentic and women as communal (Rudman and Kilianski,
2000). Thus, organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism should more strongly believe that women are unfit for
organizational roles that are demanding, challenging, and requiring agentic behavior. Indeed, in studies of male MBA students those higher (vs.
lower) in benevolent sexism assigned a fictional woman less challenging tasks than a matched man (King et al., 2012). The researchers reasoned that
this occurred because men are attempting to “protect” women from the struggles of challenging work. Although there has been little research
conducted that has looked at benevolent sexism and gender discrimination in HR-related decisions, the findings are consistent with our model.
Finally, organizational decision makers who are higher (vs. lower) in benevolent sexism should engage in a complex form of gender discrimination
when enacting HR policy and decisions that involves mixed messages: women are more likely to receive messages of positive verbal feedback (e.g.,
“stellar work,” “excellent work”) but lower numeric ratings on performance appraisals, compared with men (Biernat et al., 2012). It is proposed that
this pattern of giving women positive messages about their performance while rating them poorly reflects benevolent sexists’ desire to protect
women from harsh criticism. However, given that performance appraisals are used for promotion decisions and that constructive feedback is needed
for learning, managers’ unwillingness to give women negative verbal criticisms can lead to skill plateau and career stagnation.

Furthermore, exposure to benevolent sexism can harm women’s motivation, goals and performance. Adolescent girls whose mothers are high in
benevolent (but not hostile) sexism display lower academic goals and academic performance (Montañés et al., 2012). Of greater relevance to the
workplace, when role-playing a job candidate, women who interacted with a hiring manager scripted to make benevolently sexist statements became
preoccupied with thoughts about their incompetence, and consequently performed worse in the interview, compared with those in a control condition
(Dardenne et al., 2007). These findings suggest that benevolent sexism during the enactment of HR practices can harm women’s work-related
motivation and goals, as well as their performance, which can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy (Word et al., 1974). In other words, the low
expectations benevolent sexists have of women can be confirmed by women as they are undermined by paternalistic messages.

Ambivalent sexism can operate to harm women’s access to jobs, opportunities for development, ratings of performance, and lead to stigmatization.
However, hostile and benevolent sexism operate in different ways. Hostile sexism has direct negative consequences for women’s access to high
status, male-typed jobs (Masser and Abrams, 2004; Salvaggio et al., 2009), and it is related to higher rates of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald et al.,
1995b; Mitchell et al., 2004; Russell and Trigg, 2004), which negatively affect women’s health, well-being, and workplace withdrawal behaviors
(Willness et al., 2007). In contrast, benevolent sexism has indirect negative consequences for women’s careers, for instance, in preventing access to
challenging tasks (King et al., 2012) and critical developmental feedback (Vescio et al., 2005). Interestingly, exposure to benevolent sexism results
in worsened motivation and cognitive performance, compared with exposure to hostile sexism (Dardenne et al., 2007; Montañés et al., 2012). This is
because women more easily recognize hostile sexism as a form of discrimination and inequality, compared with benevolent sexism, which can be
more subtle in nature (Dardenne et al., 2007). Thus, women can externalize hostile sexism and mobilize against it, but the subtle nature of
benevolent sexism prevents these processes (Kay et al., 2005; Becker and Wright, 2011). Therefore, hostile and benevolent sexism lead to different
but harmful forms of HR discrimination. Future research should more closely examine their potentially different consequences.

Thus far, we have articulated how gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices can affect discrimination in HR policy
and in HR-related decision-making and enactment. Furthermore, we have argued that organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and
benevolent sexism are critical factors leading to personal discrimination in HR-related decision-making and enactment, albeit in different forms. We
now turn to an integration of these two phenomena.

The Effect of Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices on Organizational Decision

Makers’ Levels of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism

Organizational decision makers’ beliefs about men and women should be affected by the work environments in which they are embedded. Thus,
when there are more gender inequalities within organizational structures, processes, and practices, organizational decision makers should have
higher levels of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Two inter-related processes can account for this proposition: the establishment of who
becomes and remains an organizational member, and the socialization of organizational members.

First, as organizations develop over time, forces work to attract, select, and retain an increasingly homogenous set of employees in terms of their
hostile and benevolent sexism (Schneider, 1983, 1987). In support of this perspective, an individual’s values tend to be congruent with the values in
his or her work environment (e.g., Holland, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). People are attracted to and choose to work for organizations that have
characteristics similar to their own, and organizations select individuals who are likely to fit with the organization. Thus, more sexist individuals are
more likely to be attracted to organizations with greater gender inequality in leadership, structure, strategy, culture, climate, and HR policy; and they
will be seen as a better fit during recruitment and selection. Finally, individuals who do not fit with the organization tend to leave voluntarily
through the process of attrition. Thus, less (vs. more) sexist individuals would be more likely to leave a workplace with marked gender inequalities
in organizational structures, processes, and practices. The opposite should be true for organizations with high gender equality. Through attraction,
selection, and attrition processes it is likely that organizational members will become more sexist in a highly gender unequal organization and less
sexist in a highly gender equal organization.

Second, socialization processes can change organizational members’ personal attributes, goals, and values to match those of the organization
(Ostroff and Rothausen, 1997). Organizational members’ receive both formal and informal messages about gender inequality—or equality—within
an organization through their orientation and training, reading of organizational policy, perceptions of who rises in the ranks, how women (vs. men)
are treated within the organization, as well as their perception of climates for diversity and sexual harassment. Socialization of organizational
members over time has been shown to result in organizational members’ values and personalities changing to better match the values of the
organization (Kohn and Schooler, 1982; Cable and Parsons, 2001).
These socialization processes can operate to change organizational members’ levels of sexism. It is likely that within more sexist workplaces,
people’s levels of hostile and benevolent sexism increase because their normative beliefs shift due to exposure to institutional discrimination against
women, others’ sexist attitudes and behavior, and gender bias in culture and climate (Schwartz and DeKeseredy, 2000; Ford et al., 2008; Banyard et
al., 2009). These processes can also lead organizational decision makers to adopt less sexist attitudes in a workplace context marked by greater
gender equality. Thus, organizational members’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism can be shaped by the degree of gender inequalities in
organizational structures, processes, and practices and by the sexism levels of their work colleagues.

In addition, organizational decision makers can be socialized to act in discriminatory ways without personally becoming more sexist. If
organizational decision makers witness others acting in a discriminatory manner with positive consequences, or acting in an egalitarian way with
negative consequences, they can learn to become more discriminatory in their HR practices through observational learning (Bandura, 1977, 1986).
So, organizational decision makers could engage in personal discrimination without being sexist if they perceive that the fair treatment of women in
HR would encounter resistance given the broader organizational structures, processes, and practices promoting gender inequality. Yet over time,
given cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962), it is likely that discriminatory behavior could induce attitude change among organizational decision
makers to become more sexist.

Thus far we have argued that gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices, organizational decision makers’ sexist
attitudes, and gender discrimination in HR practices can have reciprocal, reinforcing relationships. Thus, it may appear that we have created a model
that is closed and determinate in nature; however, this would be a misinterpretation. In the following section, we outline how organizations marked
by gender inequalities can reduce discrimination against women.

How to Reduce Gender Discrimination in Organizations

The model we present for understanding gender discrimination in HR practices is complex. We believe that such complexity is necessary to
accurately reflect the realities of organizational life. The model demonstrates that many sources of gender inequality are inter-related and have
reciprocal effects. By implication, there are no simple or direct solutions to reduce gender discrimination in organizations. Rather, this complex
problem requires multiple solutions. In fact, as discussed by Gelfand et al. (2007), if an organization attempts to correct discrimination in only one
aspect of organizational structure, process, or practice, and not others, such change attempts will be ineffective due to mixed messages. Therefore,
we outline below how organizations can reduce gender discrimination by focusing on (a) HR policies (i.e., diversity initiatives and family friendly
policies) and closely related organizational structures, processes, and practices; (b) HR-related decision-making and enactment; as well as, (c) the
organizational decision makers who engage in such actions.

Reducing Gender Discrimination in HR Policy and Associated Organizational Structures, Processes, and Practices

Organizations can take steps to mitigate discrimination in HR policies. As a first example, let us consider how an organization can develop, within
its HR systems, diversity initiatives aimed at changing the composition of the workforce that includes policies to recruit, retain, and develop
employees from underrepresented groups (Jayne and Dipboye, 2004). Diversity initiatives can operate like affirmative action programs in that
organizations track and monitor (a) the number of qualified candidates from different groups (e.g., women vs. men) in a pool, and (b) the number of
candidates from each group hired or promoted. When the proportion of candidates from a group successfully selected varies significantly from their
proportion in the qualified pool then action, such as targeted recruitment efforts, needs to be taken.

Importantly, such efforts to increase diversity can be strengthened by other HR policies that reward managers, who select more diverse personnel,
with bonuses (Jayne and Dipboye, 2004). Organizations that incorporate diversity-based criteria into their performance and promotion policies and
offer meaningful incentives to managers to identify and develop successful female candidates for promotion are more likely to succeed in retaining
and promoting diverse talent (Murphy and Cleveland, 1995; Cleveland et al., 2000). However, focusing on short-term narrowly defined criteria, such
as increasing the number of women hired, without also focusing on candidates’ merit and providing an adequate climate or support for women are
unlikely to bring about any long-term change in diversity, and can have detrimental consequences for its intended beneficiaries (Heilman et al.,
1992, 1997). Rather, to be successful, HR policies for diversity need to be supported by the other organizational structures, processes, and practices,
such as strategy, leadership, and climate.

For instance, diversity initiatives should be linked to strategies to create a business case for diversity (Jayne and Dipboye, 2004). An organization
with a strategy to market to more diverse populations can justify that a more diverse workforce can better serve potential clientele (Jayne and
Dipboye, 2004). Alternatively, an organization that is attempting to innovate and grow might justify a corporate strategy to increase diversity on the
grounds that diverse groups have multiple perspectives on a problem with the potential to generate more novel, creative solutions (van Knippenberg
et al., 2004). Furthermore, organizational leaders must convey strong support for the HR policies for them to be successful (Rynes and Rosen, 1995).
Given the same HR policy within an organization, leaders’ personal attitudes toward the policy affects the discrimination levels found within their
unit (Pryor, 1995; Pryor et al., 1995). Finally, diversity programs are more likely to succeed in multicultural organizations with strong climates for
diversity (Elsass and Graves, 1997; Jayne and Dipboye, 2004). An organization’s climate for diversity consists of employees’ shared perceptions
that the organization’s structures, processes, and practices are committed to maintaining diversity and eliminating discrimination (Nishii and Raver,
2003; Gelfand et al., 2007). In organizations where employees perceive a strong climate for diversity, diversity programs result in greater employee
attraction and retention among women and minorities, at all levels of the organization (Cox and Blake, 1991; Martins and Parsons, 2007).

As a second example of how HR policies can mitigate gender inequalities, we discuss HR policies to lessen employees’ experience of work-family
conflict. Work-family conflict is a type of role conflict that workers experience when the demands (e.g., emotional, cognitive, time) of their work
role interfere with the demands of their family role or vice versa (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Work-family conflict has the negative consequences
of increasing employee stress, illness-related absence, and desire to turnover (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). Importantly, women are more
adversely affected by work-family conflict than men (Martins et al., 2002). Work-family conflict can be exacerbated by HR policies that evaluate
employees based on face time (i.e., number of hours present at the office), as a proxy for organizational commitment (Perlow, 1995; Elsbach et al.,
2010).

Formal family friendly HR policies can be adopted to relieve work-family conflict directly, which differentially assists women in the workplace. For
instance, to reduce work-family conflict, organizations can implement HR policies such as flexible work arrangements, which involve flexible
schedules, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, job-shares, and part-time work (Galinsky et al., 2008). In conjunction with other family friendly
policies, such as the provision of childcare, elderly care, and paid maternity leave, organizations can work to reduce stress and improve the retention
of working mothers (Burke, 2002).

Unfortunately, it has been found that the enactment of flexible work policies can still lead to discrimination. Organizational decision makers’ sexism
can lead them to grant more flexible work arrangements to white men than to women and other minorities because white men are seen as more
valuable (Kelly and Kalev, 2006). To circumvent this, organizations need to formalize HR policies relating to flexible work arrangements (Kelly and
Kalev, 2006). For instance, formal, written policies should articulate who can adopt flexible work arrangements (e.g., employees in specific
divisions or with specific job roles) and what such arrangements look like (e.g., core work from 10 am to 3 pm with flexible work hours from 7 to 10
am or from 3 to 6 pm). When the details of such policies are formally laid out, organizational decision makers have less latitude and therefore less
opportunity for discrimination in granting access to these arrangements.

To be successful, family friendly HR policies should be tied to other organizational structures, processes, and practices such as organizational
strategy, leadership, culture, and climate. A business case for flexible work arrangements can be made because they attract and retain top-talent,
which includes women (Baltes et al., 1999). Furthermore, organizational leaders must convey strong support for family friendly programs (Jayne
and Dipboye, 2004). Leaders can help bolster the acceptance of family friendly policies through successive interactions, communications, visibility,
and role modeling with employees. For instance, a leader who sends emails at 2 o’clock in the morning is setting a different expectation of constant
availability than a leader who never sends emails after 7:00 pm. Family friendly HR policies must also be supported by simultaneously changing the
underlying organizational culture that promotes face time. Although it is difficult to change the culture of an organization, the leaders’ of the
organization play an influential role in instilling such change because the behaviors of leaders are antecedents and triggers of organizational culture
(Kozlowski and Doherty, 1989; Ostroff et al., 2012). In summary, HR policies must be supported by other organizational structures, processes, and
practices in order for these policies to be effective.

Adopting HR diversity initiative policies and family friendly policies can reduce gender discrimination and reshape the other organizational
structures, processes, and practices and increase gender equality in them. Specifically, such policies, if successful, should increase the number of
women in all departments and at all levels of an organization. Further, having more women in leadership positions signals to organizational
members that the organization takes diversity seriously, affecting the diversity climate of the organization, and ultimately its culture (Konrad et al.,
2010). Thus, particular HR policies can reduce gender inequalities in all of the other organizational structures, processes, and practices.

Reducing Gender Discrimination in HR-Related Decision-Making and Enactment

A wealth of research demonstrates that an effective means of reducing personal bias by organizational decision makers in HR practices is to develop
HR policies that standardize and objectify performance data (e.g., Konrad and Linnehan, 1995; Reskin and McBrier, 2000). To reduce
discrimination in personnel decisions (i.e., employee hiring and promotion decisions) a job analysis should be performed to determine the
appropriate knowledge skills and abilities needed for specific positions (Fine and Cronshaw, 1999). This ensures that expectations about
characteristics of the ideal employee for that position are based on accurate knowledge of the job and not gender stereotypes about the job (Welle
and Heilman, 2005). To reduce discrimination in performance evaluations, HR policies should necessitate the use of reliable measures based on
explicit objective performance expectations and apply these practices consistently across all worker evaluations (Bernardin et al., 1998; Ittner et al.,
2003). Employees’ performance should be evaluated using behaviorally anchored rating scales (Smith and Kendall, 1963) that allow supervisors to
rate subordinates on examples of actual work behaviors. These evaluations should be done regularly, given that delays require retrieving memories
of work performance and this process can be biased by gender stereotypes (Sanchez and De La Torre, 1996). Finally, if greater gender differences
are found on selection tests than on performance evaluations, then the use of such biased selection tests needs to be revisited (Chung-Yan and
Cronshaw, 2002). In summary, developing HR policies that standardize and objectify the process of employee/candidate evaluations can reduce
personal bias in HR practices.
Importantly, the level of personal discrimination enacted by organizational decision makers can be reduced by formalizing HR policies, and by
controlling the situations under which HR-related decisions are made. We have articulated how HR-related decisions involve social cognition and
are therefore susceptible to biases introduced by the use of gender stereotypes. This can occur unwittingly by those who perceive themselves to be
unprejudiced but who are affected by stereotypes or negative automatic associations nonetheless (Chugh, 2004; Son Hing et al., 2008). For instance,
when HR policies do not rely on objective criteria, and the context for evaluation is ambiguous, organizational decision makers will draw on gender
(and other) stereotypes to fill in the blanks when evaluating candidates (Heilman, 1995, 2001). Importantly, the context can be constructed in such a
way as to reduce these biases. For instance, organizational decision makers will make less biased judgments of others if they have more time
available to evaluate others, are less cognitively busy (Martell, 1991), have higher quality of information available about candidates, and are
accountable for justifying their ratings and decisions (Kulik and Bainbridge, 2005; Roberson et al., 2007). Thus, if they have the time, motivation,
and opportunity to make well-informed, more accurate judgments, then discrimination in performance ratings can be reduced.

Reducing Organizational Decision Makers’ Sexism

Another means to reduce gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and enactment is to focus directly on reducing the hostile and
benevolent sexist beliefs of organizational decision makers. Interventions aimed at reducing these beliefs typically involve diversity training, such as
a seminar, course, or workshop. Such training involves one or more sessions that involve interactive discussions, lectures, and practical assignments.
During the training men and women are taught about sexism and how gender roles in society are socially constructed. Investigations have shown
these workshop-based interventions are effective at reducing levels of hostile sexism but have inconsistent effects on benevolent sexism (Case,
2007; de Lemus et al., 2014). The subtle, and in some ways positive nature of benevolent sexism makes it difficult to confront and reduce using such
interventions. However, levels of benevolent sexism are reduced when individuals are explicitly informed about the harmful implications of
benevolent sexism (Becker and Swim, 2012). Unfortunately, these interventions have not been tested in organizational settings. So their efficacy in
the field is unknown.

Conclusion

Gender inequality in organizations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in HR practices (i.e., policies, decision-making, and their enactment)
that affects the hiring, training, pay, and promotion of women. We propose that gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and the
enactment of HR practices stems from gender inequalities in broader organizational structures, processes, and practices, including HR policy but
also leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and organizational climate. Moreover, reciprocal effects should occur, such that discriminatory HR
practices can perpetuate gender inequalities in organizational leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and climate. Organizational decision makers
also play an important role in gender discrimination. We propose that personal discrimination in HR-related decisions and enactment arises from
organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. While hostile sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a
desire to keep them from positions of power, benevolent sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to protect them.
Finally, we propose that gender inequalities in organizational structures, processes, and practices affect organizational decision makers’ sexism
through attraction, selection, socialization, and attrition processes. Thus, a focus on organizational structure, processes, and practices is critical.

The model we have developed extends previous work by Gelfand et al. (2007) in a number of substantive ways. Gelfand et al. (2007) proposed that
aspects of the organization, that is, structure, organizational culture, leadership, strategy, HR systems, and organizational climates, are all
interrelated and may contribute to or attenuate discrimination (e.g., racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia). First, we differ from their work by
emphasizing that workplace discrimination is most directly attributable to HR practices. Consequently, we emphasize how inequalities in other
organizational structures, processes, and practices affect institutional discrimination in HR policy. Second, our model differs from that of Gelfand et
al. (2007) in that we focus on the role of organizational decision makers in the enactment of HR policy. The attitudes of these decision makers
toward specific groups of employees are critical. However, the nature of prejudice differs depending on the target group (Son Hing and Zanna,
2010). Therefore, we focus on one form of bias—sexism—in the workplace. Doing so, allows us to draw on more nuanced theories of prejudice,
namely ambivalent sexism theory (Glick and Fiske, 1996). Thus, third, our model differs from the work of Gelfand et al. (2007) by considering how
dual beliefs about women (i.e., hostile and benevolent beliefs) can contribute to different forms of gender discrimination in HR practices. Fourth, we
differ from Gelfand et al. (2007) by reviewing how organizational decision makers’ level of sexism within an organization is affected by
organizational structures, processes, and practices via selection-attraction-attrition processes and through socialization processes.

However, the model we have developed is not meant to be exhaustive. There are multiple issues that we have not addressed but should be
considered: what external factors feed into our model? What other links within the model might arise? What are the limits to its generalizability?
What consequences derive from our model? How can change occur given a model that is largely recursive in nature? We focus on these issues
throughout our conclusion.

In this paper, we have illustrated what we consider to be the dominant links in our model; however, additional links are possible. First, we do not lay
out the factors that feed into our model, such as government regulations, the economy, their competitors, and societal culture. In future work, one
could analyze the broader context that organizations operate in, which influences its structures, processes, and practices, as well as its members. For
instance, in societies marked by greater gender inequalities, the levels of hostile and benevolent sexism of organizational decision makers will be
higher (Glick et al., 2000). Second, there is no link demonstrating how organizational decision makers who are more sexist have the capacity, even if
they sit lower in the organizational hierarchy, to influence the amount of gender inequality in organizational structures, processes, and practices. It is
possible for low-level managers or HR personnel who express more sexist sentiments to—through their own behavior—affect others’ perceptions of
the tolerance for discrimination in the workplace (Ford et al., 2001) and others’ perceptions of the competence and hireability of female job
candidates (Good and Rudman, 2010). Thus, organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism can affect organizational
climates, and potentially other organizational structures, processes, and practices. Third, it is possible that organizational structures, processes, and
practices could moderate the link between organizational decision makers’ sexist attitudes and their discriminatory behavior in HR practices. The
ability of people to act in line with their attitudes depends on the strength of the constraints in the social situation and the broader context (Lewin,
1935, 1951). Thus, if organizational structures, processes, and practices clearly communicate the importance of gender equality then the
discriminatory behavior of sexist organizational decision makers should be constrained. Accordingly, organizations should take steps to mitigate
institutional discrimination by focusing on organizational structures, processes, and practices rather than focusing solely on reducing sexism in
individual employees.

Our model does not consider how women’s occupational status is affected by their preferences for gender-role-consistent careers and their childcare
and family responsibilities, which perhaps should not be underestimated (e.g., Manne, 2001; Hakim, 2006; Ceci et al., 2009). In other words,
lifestyle preferences could contribute to gender differences in the workplace. However, it is important to consider how women’s agency in choosing
occupations and managing work-life demands is constrained. Gender imbalances (e.g., in pay) in the workplace (e.g., Moss-Racusin et al., 2012;
Sheltzer and Smith, 2014) and gender imbalances in the home (e.g., in domestic labor, childcare; Bianchi, 2000; Bianchi et al., 2000) shape the
decisions that couples (when they consist of a woman and a man) make about how to manage dual careers. For instance, research has uncovered that
women with professional degrees leave the labor force at roughly three times the rate of men (Baker, 2002). Women’s decisions to interrupt their
careers were difficult and were based on factors, such as workplace inflexibility, and their husbands’ lack of domestic responsibilities, rather than a
preference to stay at home with their children (Stone and Lovejoy, 2004). Thus, both factors inside and outside the workplace constrain and shape
women’s career decisions.

Our model is derived largely from research that has been conducted in male-dominated organizations; however, we speculate that it should hold for
female-dominated organizations. There is evidence that tokenism does not work against men in terms of their promotion potential in female-
dominated environments. Rather, there is some evidence for a glass-escalator effect for men in female-dominated fields, such as nursing, and social
work (Williams, 1992). In addition, regardless of the gender composition of the workplace, men are advantaged, compared with women in terms of
earnings and wage growth (Budig, 2002). Finally, even in female-dominated professions, segregation along gender lines occurs in organizational
structure (Snyder and Green, 2008). Thus, the literature suggests that our model should hold for female-dominated environments.

Some might question if our model assumes that organizational decision makers enacting HR practices are men. It does not. There is evidence that
decision makers who are women also discriminate against women (e.g., the Queen Bee phenomenon; Ellemers et al., 2004). Further, although men
are higher in hostile sexism, compared with women (Glick et al., 1997, 2000), they are not necessarily higher in benevolent sexism (Glick et al.,
2000). More importantly, the effects of hostile and benevolent sexism are not moderated by participant gender (Masser and Abrams, 2004;
Salvaggio et al., 2009; Good and Rudman, 2010). Thus, those who are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism respond in a more discriminatory
manner, regardless of whether they are men or women. Thus, organizational decision makers, regardless of their sex, should discriminate more
against women in HR practices when they are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism.

In future work, the consequences of our model for women discriminated against in HR practices should be considered. The negative ramifications of
sexism and discrimination on women are well known: physical and psychological stress, worse physical health (e.g., high blood pressure, ulcers,
anxiety, depression; Goldenhar et al., 1998); lower job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and attachment to work (Murrell et al., 1995; Hicks-
Clarke and Iles, 2000); lower feelings of power and prestige (Gutek et al., 1996); and performance decrements through stereotype threat (Spencer et
al., 1999). However, how might these processes differ depending on the proximal cause of the discrimination?

Our model lays out two potential paths by which women might be discriminated against in HR practices: institutional discrimination stemming from
organizational structures, processes, and practices and personal discrimination stemming from organizational decision makers’ levels of sexism. In
order for the potential stressor of stigmatization to lead to psychological and physical stress it must be seen as harmful and self-relevant (Son Hing,
2012). Thus, if institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices are completely hidden then discrimination might not
cause stress reactions associated with stigmatization because it may be too difficult for women to detect (Crosby et al., 1986; Major, 1994), and label
as discrimination (Crosby, 1984; Stangor et al., 2003). In contrast, women should be adversely affected by stigmatization in instances where gender
discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices is more evident. For instance, greater perceptions of discrimination are
associated with lower self-esteem in longitudinal studies (Schmitt et al., 2014).

It might appear that we have created a model, which is a closed system, with no opportunities to change an organization’s trajectory: more unequal
organizations will become more hierarchical, and more equal organizations will become more egalitarian. We do not believe this to be true. One
potential impetus for organizations to become more egalitarian may be some great shock such as sex-based discrimination lawsuits that the
organization either faces directly or sees its competitors suffer. Large corporations have been forced to settle claims of gender harassment and
gender discrimination with payouts upward of $21 million (Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2004; LexisNexis, 2010; Velez, et al. v. Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Crop, et al., 2010). Discrimination lawsuits are time consuming and costly (James and Wooten, 2006), resulting in lower shares,
lower public perceptions, higher absenteeism, and higher turnover (Wright et al., 1995). Expensive lawsuits experienced either directly or indirectly
should act as a big driver in the need for change.

Furthermore, individual women can work to avoid stigmatization. Women in the workplace are not simply passive targets of stereotyping processes.
People belonging to stigmatized groups can engage in a variety of anti-stigmatization techniques, but their response options are constrained by the
cultural repertoires available to them (Lamont and Mizrachi, 2012). In other words, an organization’s culture will provide its members with a
collective imaginary for how to behave. For instance, it might be unimaginable for a woman to file a complaint of sexual harassment if she knows
that complaints are never taken seriously. Individuals do negotiate stigmatization processes; however, this is more likely when stigmatization is
perceived as illegitimate and when they have the resources to do so (Major and Schmader, 2001). Thus, at an individual level, people engage in
strategies to fight being discriminated against but these strategies are likely more constrained for those who are most stigmatized.

Finally, possibly the most efficacious way for organizational members (men and women) to challenge group-based inequality and to improve the
status of women as a whole is to engage in collective action (e.g., participate in unions, sign petitions, organize social movements, recruit others to
join a movement; Klandermans, 1997; Wright and Lubensky, 2009). People are most likely to engage in collective action when they perceive group
differences as underserved or illegitimate (Wright, 2001). Such a sense of relative deprivation involves feelings of injustice and anger that prompt a
desire for wide scale change (van Zomeren et al., 2008). Interestingly, people are more likely to experience relative deprivation when inequalities
have begun to be lessened, and thus their legitimacy questioned (Crosby, 1984; Kawakami and Dion, 1993; Stangor et al., 2003). If organizational
leaders respond to such demands for change by altering previously gender oppressive organizational structures, processes, and practices, this can, in
people’s minds, open the door for additional changes. Therefore, changes to mitigate gender inequalities within any organizational structure, policy,
or practice could start a cascade of transformations leading to a more equal organization for men and women.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment

This research was supported by funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) awarded to Leanne S. Son Hing.

Footnotes

1. ^ In this study, candidates were identified with initials and participants were asked to indicate the presumed gender of the candidate after evaluating
them.( https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400/full)

5 Top Issues Fueling Gender Inequality in the Workplace

Let’s face it. Women make the world go around, literally. Yet despite juggling all of life’s crazy demands — birthing and raising children, providing
financial stability and preparing healthy, home-cooked meals while also trying to find time for exercise, time with friends, and the occasional
moment of relaxation — women are still treated as “less than” in the workforce. Here are five major challenges still facing women in the workplace.

1. Unequal pay

On average, American women are more educated than men. For decades, women have earned more bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and
doctorate degrees than men. Yet women in the U.S. workforce still earn less than their male counterparts. How much less?

While some statistics show that women earn 80 percent of what men are paid, new data published in November 2018 suggests the pay gap between
men and women may even be greater.

According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, women earn 49 cents compared to every $1 men earn. Unlike other research, the new data
considers part-time workers and women who have taken time off from work to shoulder the demands of having and raising children or other family
obligations. More than half of women leave the workforce for at least a year, which is twice the rate of men.

To help curb this discrepancy, experts say new policies are needed, including more paid parental leave, support for child care, and other pro-family
policies.

VISIT GenderEqualityFunds.org to align your values with your investments

2. Sexual harassment

An obstacle that many women face in the workforce is sexual harassment. While the #MeToo movement has helped to shed light on the issue, little
had been known, until now, about how many women are subjected to this type of mistreatment.

A survey conducted in January 2018 by the nonprofit Stop Street Harassment found 38 percent of women have experienced sexual harassment in the
workplace, and 81 percent reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in their lifetime, including verbal or physical assault.

Data also links work-related factors to an increased risk of sexual harassment or assault in the workplace. Women restaurant workers who rely on
tips for their main source of income are twice as likely to experience sexual harassment. Women lacking legal immigration status or having only a
temporary work visa are also at an increased risk of sexual harassment or assault.

3. Racism

Unfortunately, race seems to play a major role in how women are treated and compensated in the workplace. The pay a woman receives may vary
depending on her race and ethnicity. Data from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that Asian/Pacific Islander women have the highest
median annual earnings and are compensated $46,000. White women follow at $40,000, while Native American and Hispanic women have the
lowest pay, earning $31,000 and $28,000 per year. Earnings also vary by race when compared to what men are compensated.

4. Women are promoted less often than men

Despite being more educated than men and constituting nearly half of the workforce, women are promoted at work far less often than men. We
know this because women make up less than 5 percent of CEOs and less than 10 percent of women are top earners in the S&P 500. Women of color
are even worse off, as they are nearly invisible on both S&P 500 boards and Fortune 500 boards.

One reason cited for why more women aren’t moving into higher-up executive-type roles is the lack of female role models in the workplace.
Catalyst.org says that not having a visible role model can make women feel as if moving into a leadership-type role is simply unattainable.

VISIT GenderEqualityFunds.org to align your values with your investments

5. Fear of asking to be paid what you’re worth

Women often struggle with asking for higher pay in a job. While related to the issue of unequal pay, fear of discussing money is a separate issue that
affects women more significantly than men. For women, negotiating pay is often viewed as being greedy or desperate, which leads to hesitation
when it comes to asking for their worth in the workplace.

New research from Glassdoor found women negotiated their pay less often than their male counterparts. The poll found nearly 70 percent of women
accepted the salary they were offered without negotiating, while only 52 percent of men did the same.

Want to help move the needle on gender equality issues in the workplace? Visit Gender Equality Funds and apply a gender lens to nearly
5,000 of the most commonly-held U.S. mutual funds. Gender Equality Funds enables investors to align their investment with their values. It
reveals which mutual funds are investing in the companies that lead the field in terms of gender balance and equality. Investors can easily search the
Gender Equality Funds database to see how specific funds are scored, find responsible options that track leading companies in terms of gender
equality, and compare financial returns. Sign up here for updates on Gender Equality Funds.

Julie Wilson is a writer based in Austin, Texas with a focus on health, the environment, gender inequality and other social justice issues.

Julie WilsonFebruary 25, 2019 (https://www.asyousow.org/blog/gender-equality-workplace-issues)

Introduction
The latest release from the World Economic Forum—the Gender Gap Report 2016 [1]–indicates that in the past 10 years, the global gender gap
across education and economic opportunity and politics has closed by 4%, while the economic gap has closed by 3%. Extrapolating this trajectory,
the report underlines that it will take the world another 118 years—or until 2133 –to close the economic gap entirely. Gender inequalities are
especially blatant in the workplace. For instance, on average women are more likely to work part-time, be employed in low-paid jobs and not take
on management positions [2, 3].

There is evidence that gender inequalities in the workplace stem, at least in part, from the discrimination directed against women. Indeed, several
studies have documented personal discrimination against women by decision makers (for meta-analyses see [4, 5], some of them having more
specifically examined the role of the decision makers’ level of sexist attitudes on discriminatory practices. For instance, Masser and Abrams [6]
found in an experimental study that the higher the participants scored in hostile sexism, the more they were likely to recommend a male
candidate rather than a female one for a managerial position. In spite of consistent evidence that higher sexism is related to greater bias toward
working women [7], little is known regarding the underlying processes linking sexism to discrimination. This question remains an important one,
especially because the persistence of gender discrimination contradicts the anti-discrimination rules promoted in modern societies. In fact, the
issue of gender equality in employment has given rise to numerous policies and institutional measures in advanced industrial countries, all aimed
at tackling gender discrimination with respect to recruitment, promotion and job assignment. In the USA, for instance, the 1964 Civil Rights Act
and the 1963 Equal Pay Act provided the legal foundation for the implementation of anti-discrimination laws within the workplace. The Treaty on
the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, all contain provisions relating to the promotion of equality between women
and men in all areas, and the prohibition of discrimination on any ground, including sex. The member states of the European Union must comply
with these provisions [8]. In this respect, some countries have incorporated legislation on equal treatment of women and men into general anti-
discrimination laws (e.g., Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Great Britain), while other countries have
opted for a specific gender equality act (e.g., Spain). Comparable policies have been implemented in the Asian-Pacific area, with countries
including gender equality into broad anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Australia), and other countries having passed laws especially dedicated to
addressing discrimination against women (e.g., Japan, the Philippines). The purpose of this research is to further explore the psychosocial process
involved in the stubborn persistence of gender discrimination in the workplace, using a comparative and cross-sectional perspective of national
representative samples.

Psychosocial processes involved in justified discrimination

According to several lines of research [9–13], the expression of prejudice in contexts where social and political anti-discrimination values are
prevalent implies justifications. Crandall and Eshleman [10] defined justifications as “any psychological or social process that can serve as an
opportunity to express genuine prejudice without suffering external or internal sanction”. According to social dominance theory, justification of
practices that sustain social inequality arises through the endorsement of legitimizing myths [13]. Moreover, research conducted in the field of
system justification theory has extensively documented an increased adherence to legitimizing ideologies (including social stereotypes,
meritocracy, political conservatism, etc.) in contexts where motivation to justify unequal social arrangements is heightened [14–17]. Relying on
this literature Pereira, Vala and Costa-Lopes [18] provided evidence of the mediational role of myths about social groups on the prejudice-support
for discriminatory measures relationship. Specifically, they demonstrated that the myths according to which immigrants take jobs away from the
host society members and increase crime rates mediated the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration (see also [19]). We
assume that an equivalent mediational process underlies the justification of gender discrimination in the workplace or, put differently, that the
sexism-opposition to women’s career relationship is mediated by legitimizing myths. Glick and Fiske [20] conceptualised sexism as a
multidimensional construct that encompasses hostile and benevolent sexism, both of which having three components: paternalism, gender
differentiation and heterosexuality. We suspect that the gender differentiation component of sexism in particular may be related to gender
discrimination in the workplace, because the maintenance of power asymmetry through traditional gender roles is at the core of this component
[20]. Accordingly, it is assumed that the higher the endorsement of sexist attitudes regarding gender roles in the family, the higher the opposition
to women’s work. In support of this assumption, Glick and Fiske [21] stated that gender roles are part of the more general interdependence
between women and men occurring in the context of family relationships and, importantly, that these traditional, complementary gender roles
shape sex discrimination. However, given that the expression of hostility towards women became socially disapproved [22, 23] and that gender
discrimination in the workplace is subjected to sanctions (see for instance [24]), the release of sexism with regard to women’s role in the family
and women’s professional opportunities may require justification [10, 19].

Motherhood myths as a justification for gender discrimination

Compared with other intergroup relations, gender relations present some unique features (e.g., heterosexual interdependence; [25,26] and
accordingly comprise specific myths and ideologies aimed at maintaining the traditional system of gender relations [27–29]. For instance, the
belief that marriage is the most meaningful and fulfilling adult relationship appears as a justifying myth, on which men and women rely when the
traditional system of gender relations is challenged by enhanced gender equality measured at the national level [30]. Drawing on this literature,
we propose that beliefs that imbue women with specific abilities for domestic and parental work ensure that the traditional distribution of gender
roles is maintained. In particular, we suggest that motherhood myths serve a justification function regarding gender discrimination against women
in the workplace. Motherhood myths include the assumptions that women, by their very nature, are endowed with parenting abilities, that at-
home mothers are bonded to their children, providing them unrivalled nurturing surroundings [31, 32]. Conversely, motherhood myths
pathologised alternative mothering models, depicting employed mothers as neglecting their duty of caring, threatening the family relationships
and jeopardizing mother-children bondings (see [33] for a critical review of these myths). Motherhood myths have the potential to create
psychological barriers impairing women’s attempt to seek power in the workplace [34] and men’s involvement in child care [35–37]. We suggest
that beyond their pernicious influence at the individual level of parental choices, motherhood myths might operate more broadly as justifications
for gender discrimination regarding career opportunity. This question is of particular relevance given that equal treatment in the workplace
appears even more elusive for women with children—the maternal wall [38] (see also [39–45]). At the same time, recognizing the pervasive
justifying function of motherhood myths may help understand the psychosocial barriers faced not only by women who are mothers, but by
women as a whole since "women are expected to become mothers sooner or later" (Dambrin & Lambert [46], p. 494; see also [47]). Relying on
previous work documenting the mediational role of legitimizing myths on the prejudice—discrimination relationship [18, 19] we suggest that the
myths according to which women pursuing a career threaten the well-being of the family mediates the relationship between sexist attitudes
regarding gender roles and opposition to women’s work.

Exploring gender and time as possible moderators of the hypothesized mediation

Besides the test of the main mediational hypothesis, the present research sought to explore time and gender as possible moderators of the
assumed relationship between sexism, motherhood myths and discrimination. A review of the historical development of gender equality policies
confirms that the implementation of laws and regulations aimed at eliminating gender discrimination in the workplace is a lengthy process (e.g.,
for the European countries see [48]; for the USA see [49]). In fact, although the basic principle of anti-discrimination has been enacted by many
countries in the second half of the 20th century, some measures are still adopted nowadays, such as the obligation for employers to publish
information by 2018 about their bonuses for men and women as part of their gender pay gap reporting, a provision recently taken by the UK
government. As egalitarian principles have gradually progressed in societies, it is likely that the expression of intergroup bias has become steadily
subjected to social sanction. Thus, “as with racism, normative and legislative changes have occurred in many industrialized societies that make it
less acceptable to express sexist ideas openly” (Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, [50], p. 843; see also [51]). Accordingly, gender discrimination
within organizations became less intense and more ambiguous [52–54]. In line with this reasoning, the use of motherhood myths as a justification
for unequal career opportunities may have increased over time. Conversely, it has been suggested that along with the increasing female
participation in the labour market over the last decades, a positive attitude regarding the government-initiated women-friendly policies now
coexists with an adherence to traditional family values and norms [55]. There is a possibility that the coexistence of contradictory norms in the
same culture may leave some room for the expression of gender bias (i.e., a normative compromise, [56]), reducing slightly the need to rely on
justifications to discriminate against working women. The present research will examine these possibilities by studying the role of motherhood
myths on the sexism—discrimination relationship in 1994 and 2012.

Another possible moderator examined in the present study is the respondents' gender. Basically, the reason why people rely on justifications is to
express their genuine prejudices without appearing biased. Consistent evidence, however, suggests that the perpetrator’s gender affects people’s
perception of sexism towards women: given that sexism is generally conceived as involving a man discriminating against a woman, men are
perceived as prototypical of the perpetrator [57, 58]. As a consequence, sexist behaviours carried out by males are perceived as more sexist than
the same behaviours enacted by females [59, 60]. Moreover, the expression of sexism by women may go undetected due to the reluctance of
women to recognize that they might be harmed by a member of their own gender group [22]. Taken together, these findings suggest that a
woman is more likely than a man to express sexist bias without being at risk of appearing sexist. In line with this reasoning, one could assume that
men need to rely on justifications to discriminate to a greater extent than women do. Alternatively, women expressing sexism against their
ingroup members are at risk of being negatively evaluated for violating the prescription of feminine niceness [61, 62]. As a consequence, women
might be inclined to use justifications to discriminate in order to maintain positive interpersonal evaluations. An additional argument for assuming
that women may rely on motherhood myths lies in the system justification motive. According to system justification theory [63, 64], people are
motivated to defend and justify the status quo, even at the expense of their ingroup. From this perspective, the belief that every group in society
possesses some advantages and disadvantages increases the belief that the system is balanced and fair [29, 65]. Motherhood myths imbue women
with a natural, instinctual and biologically rooted capacity to raise children that men are lacking [66]. In addition, they convey gender stereotype
describing women in positive terms (e.g., considerate, warm, nurturing) allowing a women-are-wonderful perception [27]. As a consequence,
women are likely to rely on motherhood myths to restore the illusion that, despite men structural advantage [67, 68], women as a group still
possess some prerogatives [34].

Overview

The aim of the present study is to test the main hypothesis (H1) that motherhood myths are a justification that mediates the relationship between
sexism and opposition to women’s work following the birth of a child. Additionally, two potential moderators of this mediational process are
considered. The present research tests the exploratory hypotheses that (H2) the assumed mediational process is moderated by time and (H3) by
participants’ gender. We tested these hypotheses using the Family and Changing Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey
Programme [69, 70]. This international academic project, based on a representative probabilistic national sample, deals with gender related issues,
including attitudes towards women’s employment and household management. Hence this database enables a test of the proposed mediational
model on a large sample of female and male respondents and data gathered 18 years apart.

Method

Data

We used the 2012 and 1994 waves of the ISSP Family and Changing Gender Roles cross-national survey [69, 70]. The ISSP published fully
anonymized data so that individual survey participants cannot be identified. The two databases slightly differed regarding the involved countries,
some of which did not participate in the two survey waves. In order to maintain consistency across the analyses, we selected 18 countries that
participated in both survey waves (i.e., Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Norway,
Philippines, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the USA). The data file for the 2012 survey wave included 24222 participants (54.4%
female participants), mean age = 49.38, SD = 17.54, and the data file for the 1994 survey wave included 27410 participants (54.4% female
participants), mean age = 44.26, SD = 17.07.

Measures

The main variables used in this study are the following:

Sexism.

One indicator was used to capture sexism: “A man's job is to earn money; a woman's job is to look after the home and family”. This item taps into
the gender differentiation component of sexism [20, 25]. Participants answered on a 5 point likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 =
strongly disagree. Data was recoded so that the higher scores reflected higher sexism.

Motherhood myths.

Two indicators were used that capture the myths about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child and the family: “A preschool child
is likely to suffer if his or her mother works” and “All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job”. Participants answered on a 5
point likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Data was recoded so that the higher scores reflected higher
endorsement of motherhood myths.

Opposition to women’s career.

Two indicators were used to capture the opposition to women’s professional career following the birth of a child: “Do you think that women
should work outside the home full-time, part-time or not at all when there is a child under school age?” and “Do you think that women should
work outside the home full-time, part-time or not at all after the youngest child starts school?” Participants answered on a scale ranging from 1 =
work full time, 2 = work part-time, 3 = stay at home.

In addition, the first step of our analyses involved the following control variables: participant’s gender and age, partnership status, educational
level, subjective social status, attendance of religious services and political orientation.
Results

The following section presents the results of a four-step analysis: The first step consists of a preliminary hierarchical regression analysis to
establish the respective contributions of demographical variables, sexism and motherhood myths to opposition to women’s work. The second step
is dedicated to a test of the construct validity of the proposed measurement model using Confirmatory Factor Analyses. The third step involves a
test of the hypothesized mediation. Finally, the last step is a test of the hypothesized moderated mediations.

Step 1: Hierarchical regression analysis

Inspection of the correlation matrix (Table 1) indicates that all the correlations are positive, ranging from moderate to strong. The pair of items
measuring motherhood myths presents the strongest correlation (r (48961) = .633), followed by the pair of items measuring opposition to
women’s career (r (45178) = .542).

Download:

 PPT

PowerPoint slide

 PNG

larger image
  TIFF

original image

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlation matrix of the indicators.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t001

We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to establish the respective contributions of demographical variables, sexism and motherhood
myths to opposition to women’s work. In block 1, participant’s gender (male = -1, female = 1) and partnership (no partner = -1, partner = 1) were
entered together with standardized scores of age, years of schooling, subjective social status, attendance of religious services and political
orientation. Block 2 included sexism, the myths about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child and for family (all standardized).
Predictors in block 1 accounted for 9% of the variance, F(7, 10140) = 157.89, p < .001. The analysis revealed the significant effects of participant’s
gender (B = -.033, SE = .006, p < .001), age (B = .058, SE = .006, p < .001), years of schooling (B = -.135, SE = .007, p < .001), subjective social status
(B = -.057, SE = .007, p < .001), religiosity (B = .076, SE = .006, p < .001) and political orientation (B = .04, SE = .006, p < .001). Partnership was
unrelated to opposition to women’s career (B = .002, SE = .006, p = .77). Taken together the results indicate that the higher the time of education
and the subjective social status, the lower the opposition to women’s work. Conversely, the higher the age, religiosity and political conservatism,
the higher the opposition to women’s work. Finally, results indicate that opposition to women’s work is more pronounced amongst men than
amongst women. When entered in block 2, sexism and motherhood myths accounted for an additional 18% of the variance, indicating that these
variables significantly improved the model’s ability to predict opposition to women’s work, over and above the contributions of gender,
partnership, education, social status, religiosity and political orientation (ΔR2 = .18), ΔF(3, 10137) = 854.04, p < .001. Specifically, the analysis
revealed the significant effects of sexism (B = .151, SE = .006, p < .001), myth about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child (B =
.10, SE = .007, p < .001) and myth about the aversive consequence of women’s work for family (B = .09, SE = .007, p < .001). It should be noted that
the effect of participant’s gender virtually disappeared after controlling for sexism and motherhood myths (Table 2). In addition, we performed
this hierarchical regression analysis separately for the two waves and consistently found that the variables of our model (sexism and the
motherhood myths) explained more variance than the demographical variables.
Download:

 PPT

PowerPoint slide

 PNG

larger image

 TIFF

original image

Table 2. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting opposition to women’s career.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t002

Step 2: Confirmatory factor analyses

We conducted a CFA to check the construct validity of the proposed measurement model. CFA and subsequent analyses were all performed using
R. 3.4.1 and the Lavaan package [71]. The loading of the single indicator of the sexism variable and the loading of the first indicator of the
motherhood myths and opposition variables were constrained to 1.00 [72], and the three variables were allowed to correlate. Results show a good
fit to the data, χ2(3, N = 42997) = 400.36, p < .001, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 540804. In addition, we estimated
an alternative model in which all items loaded on a unique latent variable. This alternative model shows a poorer fit to the data, χ2(5, N = 42997) =
8080.28, p < .001, CFI = .867, RMSEA = .19 [90% CI = .19, .19], SRMR = .07, AIC = 548480. The comparison of the two models indicates that the
proposed measurement model fits the data better than the alternative one, Δ χ 2 (2, 42997) = 7679.9, p < .001. We repeated this comparison in
each country and results confirm that the proposed measurement model fits better in all countries (see S1 Table for comparative test of the
goodness of fit of the hypothesized measurement model vs. alternative measurement model in each country).

We tested the measurement invariance of the CFA model across the two survey waves. To do this, we conducted a model comparison to test for
configural and metric invariances. Results indicate that the configural invariance can be retained, χ2(6, N = 42997) = 513.05, p < .001, CFI = .991,
RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 537580. When constraining the loadings to be equal across waves fit indices remain
satisfactory, χ2(8, N = 42997) = 679.58, p < .001, CFI = .989, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .02, AIC = 537743. The change in CFI is below
the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the metric invariance can be retained and that further comparisons of the relationships between constructs
across survey waves can be performed [73, 74]. Furthermore, we repeated this comparison in each country and results support the configural
invariance of the CFA model across survey waves in all countries. In addition, the full metric invariance is obtained in all but three countries—
Poland, Slovenia and the USA. In these countries, the CFIs are larger than the cutpoint of .01, indicating a lack of full metric invariance.
Nonetheless, we were able to retain a partial metric invariance of the CFA model across the survey waves by setting free one non-invariant loading
[75], (see S2 Table for the test of the invariance of the measurement model across survey waves by country).

We tested the measurement invariance of the CFA model across gender groups using the same procedure as for the test of the measurement
invariance across survey waves. The baseline model constraining the factor structure to be equal in the two gender groups shows good fit to the
data, χ2(6, N = 42943) = 440.95, p < .001, CFI = 0.993, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 539573, indicating that the configural
invariance is achieved for the two groups. Then we fitted a more restricted model in which the factor loadings were constrained to be equal across
groups. This model allows testing for the metric invariance (equal loadings) of the model across gender. Once again, the results indicate that this
constrained model show good fit to the data, χ2(8, N = 42943) = 469.14, p < .001, CFI = 0.992, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .04, .05], SRMR = .01, AIC =
539598. Furthermore, the Δ CFI is below the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the metric invariance can be retained [75]. This result confirms that
cross gender comparisons of the relationships between constructs can reasonably be performed. Furthermore, we repeated this procedure in
each country. Once again, the Δ CFIs are below the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the configural invariance of the CFA model across gender groups
is achieved in all countries (see S3 Table for the test of the invariance of the measurement model across gender groups by country).

Step 3. Mediation analysis

Overview of the analysis strategy.

This study main hypothesis is that (H1) the more people hold sexist attitude regarding gender roles, the more they endorse motherhood myths,
which in turn enhances the opposition to women’s career after the birth of a child. In order to test this assumption, we ran mediational analyses
using structural equation modelling. First, we examined the goodness of fit of the hypothesized mediational model and compared it with the
goodness of fit of two alternative models. In the first alternative model, motherhood myths predict sexism that, in turn, predicts opposition. In the
second alternative model, opposition to women’s career predicts motherhood myths. After having established that the hypothesized model
adequately fit the data, we examined the coefficients for the hypothesized relationships between variables.

Goodness of fit of the models.

Inspection of the fit indices indicates that the hypothesized model fits the data better than the first alternative model in 16 out of the 18 analysed
countries (Table 3). Thus, in these countries the data is better accounted for by a model stating motherhood myths as a mediator of the sexism-
opposition to women’s career relationship, rather than by a model stating sexism as a mediator of the myths-opposition to women’s career
relationship. The comparison of the fit indices indicates that the two models fit the data to almost the same extent in the two remaining countries
(i.e., Czech Republic, and Philippines). Finally, the second alternative model—where opposition to women’s career predicted motherhood myths
and sexism—shows very poor fit to the data in all countries. This result suggests that endorsement of motherhood myths is not a mere
consequence of discrimination.
Download:

 PPT

PowerPoint slide

 PNG
 larger image

 TIFF

original image

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit indices for the hypothesized mediational model and alternative models by country.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t003

Test of the relationships between variables.

The goodness of fit of the proposed mediational model having been established in 16 countries out of 18, we next examined the coefficients for
the hypothesized relationships in these countries. Table 4 shows the results of the mediation analysis in the 16 retained countries. The total effect
of sexism on opposition to women’s career is positive and significant in all countries. The direct effect is reduced in all countries when controlling
for the indirect effect through motherhood myths. As recommended in the literature, the indirect effects were subjected to follow-up bootstrap
analyses using 1000 bootstrapping resamples [76]. The null hypothesis is rejected and the indirect effect is considered significant if the 95%
confidence intervals (CI) do not include zero. All bias corrected 95% CI for the indirect effect excluded zero, indicating that in line with H1,
endorsement of motherhood myths is a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career in all countries.

Download:

 PPT
 PowerPoint slide

 PNG

larger image

 TIFF

original image

Table 4. Standardized maximum likelihood coefficients estimated for the hypothesized model by country.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t004

In order to provide an overview of the proposed mediational model, we next present the analyses conducted on the total of the 16 countries
retained. The hypothesized mediational model shows acceptable fit to the data, χ2(4, N = 38178) = 971.09, p < .001, CFI = .983, RMSEA = .08 [90%
CI = .07, .08], SRMR = .04, AIC = 473476. Inspection of the fit indices of the first alternative model where endorsement of motherhood myths
predicted sexism that, in turn, predicted opposition confirms that this alternative model shows poorer fit to the data than the proposed model,
χ2(4, N = 38178) = 7583.1, p < .001, CFI = .870, RMSEA = .22 [90% CI = .21, .22], SRMR = .13, AIC = 480088. The second alternative model, where
opposition to women’s career predicted motherhood myths shows poor fit to the data, χ2(5, N = 38178) = 14224.61, p < .001, CFI = .756, RMSEA =
.27 [90% CI = .26, .27], SRMR = .21, AIC = 486728, and accordingly fits the data less well than the proposed mediational model, Δ χ2 (1, 38178) =
13254 p < .001. As can be seen in Fig 1, the standardized regression coefficient for the direct effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is
significant (β = .16, p < .001). In addition, the unstandardized estimate for the indirect effect excludes zero (.13, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI
[.12, .13]) and, therefore, is significant. Taken together, analyses conducted on the whole sample, as well as on each country separately, support
our main assumption that endorsement of motherhood myths is a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to
women’s career.
Download:

 PPT

PowerPoint slide

 PNG

larger image

 TIFF

original image

Fig 1. Standardized maximum likelihood coefficients for the structural equation model testing the relationship between sexism and opposition to
women’s career, mediated by the endorsement of motherhood myths.

The coefficient in parentheses represents parameter estimate for the total effect of prejudice on opposition to women’s career. *** p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.g001

Step 4. Moderated mediation analyses

Indirect effect through survey waves.

The moderated mediation model was estimated using a multiple group approach. This model exhibits good fit to the data, χ 2(6, N = 38178) =
438.88, p < .001, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01. The standardized coefficients for the total effect are .50 in the 2012
survey, and .52 in the 1994 survey. The unstandardized estimates for the indirect effect is .10, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, .11] in the
2012 survey, and .11, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, .11] in the 1994 survey. The intervals do not include zero, indicating that motherhood
myths are a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career in both survey waves. The difference
between the indirect effect in 2012 and 1994 is not significant (-.003, SE = 0.004, bias corrected 95% CI [.-.01, .00]). We repeated the moderated
mediation analysis in each country. As can be seen in Table 5, the indirect effect reaches significance in each survey wave in all countries. The
indirect effect is not moderated by the survey year, except in Great Britain where the indirect effect, although still significant, decreased between
1994 and 2012, and Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia where the indirect effect slightly increased between 1994 and 2012.

Download:
  PPT

PowerPoint slide

 PNG

larger image

 TIFF

original image

Table 5. Standardized maximum likelihood coefficients estimated for the total and indirect effects as a function of the survey wave.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t005

Indirect effect as a function of the respondents’ gender.

The moderated mediation model exhibits good fit to the data, χ2(6, N = 38124) = 402.46, p < .001, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06],
SRMR = .01. The total effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is positive and significant for both men (β = .52, p < .001) and women (β =
.50, p < .001). The standardized indirect effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career through motherhood myths is .27 in the male
subsample, and .29 in the female subsample. The unstandardized estimates for the indirect effect is .11, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, 12]
in the male sample, and .10, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.09, .10] in the female sample. The intervals do not include zero, indicating that
motherhood myths are a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career among both men and women
respondents. The difference between the indirect effect among men and women is not statistically significant (.01, SE = 0.004, bias corrected 95%
CI [.00, .01]). We repeated this analysis in each country separately (see Table 6). Results confirm that the indirect effect of sexism on opposition to
women’s career through motherhood myths is not moderated by the respondents’ gender in 15 out of the 16 countries. The only exception is
Poland. In this country, the indirect effect is stronger for the female than for the male respondents.
Download:

 PPT

PowerPoint slide

 PNG

larger image

 TIFF

original image

Table 6. Standardized maximum likelihood coefficients estimated for the total and indirect effects as a function of the respondents’ gender.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t006

Discussion

Using a large representative sample of respondents from various countries the present research documented a psychosocial process of
justification of discrimination against working women with children. As a preliminary step, hierarchical regression analysis established that sexism
and motherhood myths predict opposition to women’s work, over and above gender, partnership, education, social status, religiosity and political
orientation. Furthermore, structural equation modellings on the whole sample, as well as on each country separately, confirmed our main
hypothesis that endorsement of motherhood myths mediates the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career following a
birth. In addition, test of the moderated mediation indicated that the indirect effect reaches significance in each survey wave in almost all
countries examined without substantial difference. Only in Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia did the indirect effect slightly increase between 1994 and
2012, suggesting that motherhood myths is more a justification for the expression of sexism nowadays than in the late 20 th century. Great Britain
shows a reverse pattern with a slight decrease of the indirect effect between the two waves. However, besides these minor variations, it should be
noted that motherhood myths remain a significant mediator of the sexism-opposition to women’s career relationship in all countries. The present
research also considered participants' gender as a potential moderator of the indirect effect, and results indicated that the process of justification
of discrimination against working women does not differ as a function of the respondents' gender. The only exception to this finding is Poland
where the indirect effect is indeed stronger among women than among men. An examination of the specific features of female employment in this
country sheds some light on this result. Young women in Poland are better educated than young men and are more likely to have permanent
employment than men [77]. At the same time however, working women spend on average two and a half hours per day on unpaid work more
than men—which is reflected by the fact that more than 1 in 3 women reduce their paid hours to part-time, while only 1 in 10 men do the same—
and are predominant users of parental leave [3]. It is noteworthy that reduced working hours (and long periods of leave) hinders female career
progression through less training, fewer opportunities for advancement, occupational segregation, and lower wages [78, 79]. Accordingly, in
Poland women earn 9% less than men (one of the lowest gender pay gap in OECD) but the pay gap reaches 22% by presence of children (above the
OECD average of 16%; [77]). The fact that women appear even more inclined than men to rely on motherhood myths to justify gender
discrimination is consistent with a system justification perspective [63]. Drawing on the logic of cognitive dissonance theory, system justification
theory in its strong form posits that members of disadvantaged groups may be even more likely than members of advantaged groups to support
existing social inequalities [64]. The rational is that members of disadvantaged groups would experience psychological discomfort stemming from
the concurrent awareness of their ingroup's inferiority within the system, and of their ingroup's contribution to that system. Justification of the
status quo would therefore reduce dissonance [80]. The finding that women strongly rely on motherhood myths to justify gender discrimination
precisely in a country with strong motherhood penalty can be regarded as an expression of this system justification motive.

The present research sheds new light on the effect of macrolevel inequality on the justification of discrimination, and more broadly on the process
of legitimation of gender inequalities [9, 81]. In a recent study, Yu and Lee [82] found a negative association between women’s relative status in
society and support for gender equality at home. More specifically, the authors found that although respondents in countries with smaller gender
gaps express greater support for women’s participation in the labour force, they still exhibit less approval for egalitarian gender roles within the
household, in particular regarding the share of domestic chores and childcare. As an explanation, the authors argued that the less traditional the
gender division of labour is in a society, the more people need to express their freedom of maintaining these roles and to defend the gender
system, leading to the endorsement of gender differentiation in the private sphere. However, the present research allows an alternative
explanation for this seemingly paradoxical finding to be suggested. At a macrolevel, higher gender equality conveys strong suppressive factors
(which reduce the expression of prejudice) by demonstrating that the society promotes egalitarianism between women and men. In parallel, the
gender specialization in the division of the household responsibilities and especially regarding childcare provides a strong justifying factor (which
releases prejudice) by emphasising essential differences between gender groups [26]. Thus, the counterintuitive finding that the more egalitarian a
society is, the less people support gender equality at home may indeed reflect an attempt to justify the release of genuine sexism. Conversely, it is
likely that a less egalitarian society brings with it some degree of tolerance towards gender discrimination, reducing the need to rely on
justifications to express sexism. A closer look at our results regarding Norway and Japan supports this view. Norway and Japan appears as
especially contrasted regarding gender equality, in particular with regard to economic participation and opportunity [1]. According to the World
Economic Forum, Norway has the second smallest gender gap in the world. In addition, gender equality promotion is frequently mobilised both in
political debates and in mainstream society [55]. For its part, Japan ranks 101st on the overall gender gap index, which makes Japan well below
average compared to other advanced industrial countries [83]. Besides this gender gap, consistent research reports a unique trivialisation of anti-
gender equality discourses in the media [84] and of gender-based discriminatory behaviours in the workplace, including sexual harassment [85].
Comparing the strength of the indirect effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career through motherhood myths in these two countries (Table
4), it is noteworthy that the coefficient is larger in Norway than in Japan. This result gives support to the assumption that macrolevel gender
(in)equality affects the psychological process of justification at the individual level. Future studies should clarify how macrolevel inequalities
impact societal norms, which in turn influence legitimation processes.
It is also worth noting that the justifying function of motherhood myths is established in all analysed countries despite some notable differences
between parental leaves policies and practices. For instance, the United States are the only OECD country to offer no nationwide entitlement to
paid leave, neither for mothers nor for fathers [86]. On the other hand, the Nordic nations, with Norway and Sweden in the lead, are in the
vanguard of progressive policy-making regarding shared parental leave entitlement: Sweden was the first country in the world in 1974 to offer
fathers the possibility of taking paid parental leave, quickly joined by Norway in 1978 [87]. More recently in 2007, Germany introduced a new law
aiming at encouraging shared parental leave. In practice, the length of the financial support for parental leave can increase from 12 to 14 months
provided that fathers use the parental benefit for at least 2 months. Recent research aiming at investigating whether German men who take
parental leave are judged negatively in the workplace revealed that, in contrast with women who experience penalty for motherhood [40], fathers
do not face backlash effect when they take a long parental leave [88]. The authors concluded that "gender role attitudes have changed".
Tempering this view, the present study indicates that even in countries promoting incentives for fathers to take parental leave, motherhood
myths—and specifically the belief that mother's work threatens the family—are still a justification for gender discrimination in the workplace.
With regard to practices, it should be noted that shared parental leave policies, whose purpose is to foster gender equality in the labor market,
often fail to meet this objective, with the majority of fathers actually taking the minimum length of leave entitlement, or no parental leave at all,
and the majority of mothers still facing the majority of childcare [88]. Once again, more research is needed to document the process of mutual
influences between changing family policies and the maintenance of the gender status quo via justifying beliefs.

Limitations and future directions

Although the hypothesized mediational process is supported by the data, and is in line with previous experimental findings [19], conclusion
regarding causality are necessarily limited due to the correlational nature of the research. We hope that these preliminary findings will open the
way to experimental studies allowing for a conclusion on the direction of causality between variables and the further documenting of the
behavioural consequences of the endorsement of motherhood myths. For instance, future studies should consider the extent to which
motherhood myths interact with organizational norms to constrain the hiring and promotion of women. Castilla and Benard [89] showed that
when an organization explicitly values meritocracy, managers favour a male employee over an equally qualified female employee. One explanation
for this seemingly paradoxical results lies in the legitimation function of meritocracy [17] which is likely to release the expression of sexism. We
suggest that when organizations promote egalitarian norms, or put differently, when organizations set suppression factors, then motherhood
myths may serve as a justification for unequal gender treatment regarding career outcomes.
Due to constraints related to the availability of data in the ISSP base, only one indicator was used to capture sexism. This can be regarded as a
limitation providing that sexism is typically defined as a complex construct [20]. We argue that measuring the gender differentiation component of
sexism through a single item represents a valid approach, as suggested by previous research indicating that single-item measures may be as
reliable as aggregate scales [90–94]. However, using a multiple-item measure of sexism in future studies would provide a more comprehensive
examination of the relations between the different components of sexism and opposition to gender equality in the workplace.

The present research focused on opposition to mothers' work as an indicator of gender discrimination. However, evidence suggests that
motherhood myths may justify discrimination towards women as a whole rather than mothers only. First, as previously mentioned social roles
create gender expectations [95] so that all women are expected to become mothers [47]. Furthermore, research using implicit association test
indicate that people automatically associate women with family role [96]. As a consequence, it is plausible that employers rely on motherhood
myths to discriminate against women in general regarding recruitement, performance evaluation, and rewards, arguing that women will sooner or
later be less involved in work and less flexible for advancement than men [97]. This justification is compatible with the employers' reluctance to
hire women and promote them to the highest positions even in the absence of productivity differences [98].

Practical implications

In this study we were able to document that motherhood myths are a widespread justification for gender discrimination in the workplace,
including in countries with anti-discrimination laws and advanced family policies. From this regard, the present findings help understand the
paradoxical effects of family-friendly policies on women's economic attainment. Mandel and Semyonov [99], using data from 20 countries, found
evidence that family policies aimed at supporting women's economic independence, and including provision of childcare facilities and paid
parental leaves, increase rather than decrease gender earning gaps. This unexpected effect is due to the fact that family policies are
disproportionally used by mothers rather than fathers, with the consequence that mothers are concentrated in part-time employment, female-
typed occupations, yet underrepresented in top positions. The authors concluded that "there are distinct limits to the scope for reducing gender
wage inequality in the labor market as long as women bear the major responsibility for household duties and child care" (p. 965). We would add
that there are strong barriers to the scope for attaining gender equality at home as long as motherhood myths are uncritically accepted and used
as justification for unequal gender arrangements. Recent works provided evidence of the efficiency of interventions aimed at reducing sexist
beliefs [100] and at recognizing everyday sexism [101]. In the same vain, interventions aimed at informing people that motherhood myths are
socially constructed and maintained [33], and that they affect women's advancement and fathers' involvement [35], would represent a first step
towards the reduction of discrimination by depriving individuals of a justification for gender inequalities.

The present research builds on and extends past findings by demonstrating that men and women rely on the belief that women’s work threatens
the well-being of youth and family to justify discrimination against working women. If, at an individual level, this process allows discrimination to
be exhibited without appearing prejudiced [10], at the group and societal levels, such a process may contribute to the legitimation and
reinforcement of the hierarchical power structure [63]. By documenting a pervasive process by which people invoke motherhood myths to hinder
women’s economic participation, the present research emphasizes the need to be vigilant about any attempts to promote a return to traditional
gender roles, an issue of central importance given the contemporary rollback of women’s rights in advanced industrial countries [102].