This study brings the literature on tokenism together with multiple theoretical lenses on the formation and social construction of men’s and women’s career aspirations. The study builds on comprehensive survey data from the Danish public sector. Results show that, after controlling for alternative explanations with respect to both personal life situation and differences between occupations, token status has a significantly negative effect on women’s management aspirations, while it has no effect on men’s aspirations to management. Furthermore, these findings are generalizable across occupational contexts. At the same time, however, analysis across occupations show that token women are mainly to be found in occupations where women have relatively high managerial aspirations. Token women are therefore characterized by aspirations to management positions, but their status as tokens minimizes these aspirations.
AckerJ. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139-158.
2.
AtwaterL. E.Van FleetD. D. (1997). Another ceiling? Can males compete for traditionally female jobs?Journal of Management, 23, 603-626.
3.
BeckerG. S. (1985). Human capital, effort, and the sexual division of labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 3(1, Pt. 2), 33-58.
4.
BendlR.SchmidtA. (2010). From glass ceilings to firewalls: Different metaphors for describing discrimination. Gender, Work & Organization, 17, 612-634.
5.
BergerJ.RidgewayC. L.ZelditchM. (2002). Construction of status and referential structures. Sociological Theory, 20, 157-179.
6.
BlockC. J.KochS. M.LibermanB. E.MerriweatherT. J.RobersonL. (2011). Contending with stereotype threat at work: A model of long-term responses. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 570-600.
7.
BloksgaardL. (2011). Masculinities, femininities and work: The horizontal gender segregation in the Danish labour market. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 2(1), 5-21.
8.
BudigM. J. (2002). Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: Who rides the glass escalator?Social Problems, 49, 258-277.
9.
CassirerN.ReskinB. F. (2000). High hopes: Organizational position, employment experiences, and women’s and men’s promotion aspirations. Work and Occupations, 27, 438-463.
10.
CharlesM. (2003). Deciphering sex segregation: Vertical and horizontal inequalities in ten national labor markets. Acta Sociologica, 46, 267-287.
11.
Cognard-BlackA. J. (2004). Will they stay or will they go? Sex atypical work among token men who teach. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 113-139.
12.
CohenL.SwimL. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 876-884.
13.
CorrellS. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1691-1730.
14.
CorrellS. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93-113.
15.
DiTomasoN.PostC.Parks-YancyR. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473-501.
16.
DriskellJ. E. (1982). Personal characteristics and performance expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 229-237.
17.
DriskellJ. E.OlmsteadB.SalasE. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-60.
18.
ElyR. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s social construction of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589-634.
19.
EmerekR.HoltH. (2008). Lige muligheder—frie valg? Om det kønsopdelte arbejdsmarked gennem et årti [Equal opportunities - free choices? The gender segregated labor marked thoughout a decade]. Copenhagen, Denmark: SFI—The Danish National Centre for Social Research.
20.
FairhurstG. T.SnavelyB. K. (1983a). Majority and token minority group relationships: Power acquisition and communication. The Academy of Management Review, 8, 292-300.
21.
FairhurstG. T.SnavelyB. K. (1983b). A test of the social isolation of male tokens. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 353-361.
22.
FlogeL. L.MerrillD. M. (1986). Tokenism reconsidered: Male nurses and female physicians in a hospital setting. Social Forces, 64, 925-947.
23.
GansJ. E. (1987). Men’s career advantages in nursing: The principle of the Peter. In LopataH. Z. (Ed.), Current research on occupations and professions (Vol. 4, pp. 181-198). New York, NY: JAI Press.
24.
GidengilE.VengroffR. (1997). Representative bureaucracy, tokenism and the glass ceiling: The case of women in Quebec municipal administration. Canadian Public Administration, 40, 457-480.
25.
GreedC. (2000). Women in the construction professions: Achieving critical mass. Gender, Work & Organization, 7, 181-196.
26.
GustafsonJ. L. (2008). Tokenism in policing: An empirical test of Kanter’s hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 1-10.
27.
HammondJ. A.MahoneyC. W. (1983). Reward-cost balancing among women coalminers. Sex Roles, 9, 17-29.
28.
HeikesE. J. (1991). When men are the minority: The case of men in nursing. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 389-401.
29.
HeilmanM. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113-135.
30.
HultinM. (2003). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Career consequences of occupational sex segregation. Work and Occupations, 30, 30-61.
31.
KanterR. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
32.
KanterR. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990.
33.
KingE. B.HeblM. R.GeorgeJ. M.MatusikS. F. (2010). Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of a psychological climate of gender inequity. Journal of Management, 36, 482-510.
34.
KonradA. M.KramerV.ErkutS. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 145-164.
35.
MadsenM. B.HoltH.JonassenA. B.SchademanH. K. (2010). Kvinder og mænd i den offentlige sektor. Karrieremønstre, lederønsker og ledermuligheder [Women and men in the public sector. Career patterns, management aspirations and management opportunities]. Copenhagen, Denmark: SFI—The Danish National Centre for Social Research.
36.
MainieroL. A.SullivanS. E. (2006). The opt-out revolt: Why people are leaving companies to create kaleidoscope careers. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black.
37.
MarianiM. D. (2008). A gendered pipeline? The advancement of state legislators to congress in five states. Politics & Gender, 4, 285-308.
38.
MaumeD. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions. Work and Occupations, 26, 483-509.
39.
McDonaldT. W.ToussaintL. L.SchweigerJ. A. (2004). The influence of social status on token women leaders’ expectations about leading male-dominated groups. Sex Roles, 50, 401-409.
40.
McIlweeJ. S.RobinsonJ. G. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.
41.
NgE. S.WiesnerW. H. (2007). Are men always picked over women? The effects of employment equity directives on selection decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 177-187.
42.
OttE. M. (1989). Effects of the male-female ratio at work: Policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 41-57.
43.
RashotteL. S.WebsterM.Jr. (2005). Gender status beliefs. Social Science Research, 34, 618-633.
44.
ReskinB. F. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241-270.
45.
ReskinB. F.BielbyD. D. (2005). A sociological perspective on gender and career outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 71-86.
46.
ReskinB. F.McBrierD. B.KmecJ. A. (1999). The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 335-361.
47.
RidgewayC. L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367-386.
48.
RidgewayC. L. (2001). Inequality, status, and the construction of status beliefs. In TurnerJ. H. (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 323-340). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
49.
RidgewayC. L.JohnsonC.DiekemaD. (1994). External status, legitimacy, and compliance in male and female groups. Social Forces, 72, 1051-1077.
50.
RobersonL.DeitchE. A.BriefA. P.BlockC. J. (2003). Stereotype threat and feedback seeking in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 176-188.
51.
RobersonL.KulikC. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(2), 24-40.
52.
RothL. M. (2004). The social psychology of tokenism: Status and homophily processes on Wall Street. Sociological Perspectives, 47, 189-214.
53.
SachdevI.BourhisR. Y. (1987). Status differentials and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 277-293.
54.
SchweitzerL.NgE.LyonsS.KuronL. (2011). Exploring the career pipeline: Gender differences in pre-career expectations. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 66, 422-444.
55.
SpanglerE.GordonM. A.PipkinR. M. (1978). Token women: An empirical test of Kanter’s hypothesis. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 160-170.
56.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.
57.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
58.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.AronsonJ. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379-440.
59.
Tomaskovic-DeveyD.ZimmerC.StainbackK.RobinsonC.TaylorT.McTagueT. (2006). Documenting desegregation: Segregation in American workplaces by race, ethnicity, and sex, 1966-2003. American Sociological Review, 71, 565-588.
60.
TurcoC. J. (2010). Cultural foundations of tokenism: Evidence from the leveraged buyout industry. American Sociological Review, 75, 894-913.
61.
WebberS. S.DonahueL. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141-162.
62.
WilliamsC. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267.
63.
WilliamsC. L. (1995). Still a man’s work: Men who do “women’s work.”Berkeley: University of California Press.
64.
YapM.KonradA. M. (2009). Gender and racial differentials in promotions: Is there a sticky floor, a mid-level bottleneck, or a glass ceiling?Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 64, 593-619.
65.
YoderJ. D. (1985). An academic woman as a token: A case study. Journal of Social Issues, 41(4), 61-72.
YoderJ. D. (1994). Looking beyond numbers: The effects of gender status, job prestige, and occupational gender-typing on tokenism processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 150-159.
68.
YoderJ. D. (2002). 2001 Division 35 presidential address: Context matters: Understanding tokenism processes and their impact on women’s work. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 1-8.
69.
YoderJ. D.McDonaldT. W. (1998). Measuring sexist discrimination in the workplace: Support for the validity of sexist events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 487-491.
70.
YoderJ. D.SinnettL. M. (1985). Is it all in the numbers?Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 413-418.
71.
YoungJ. L.JamesE. H. (2001). Token majority: The work attitudes of male flight attendants. Sex Roles, 45, 299-319.
72.
ZimmerL. (1988). Tokenism and women in the workplace: The limits of gender-neutral theory. Social Problems, 35, 64-77.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
