Gender Differences in Climbing up the Ladder: Why Experience Closes the Ambition Gender Gap

Abstract

Women are unequally represented in the highest positions in society. Beyond discrimination and bias, women are missing from the top because they are less likely to pursue high-ranking opportunities. We propose that experience is a critical moderator of gender differences in pursuing leadership opportunities, with low-experience women being particularly unlikely to seek higher level positions. We used field analyses of 96 years of U.S. senator and governor elections to examine male and female politicians’ propensity to run for higher political offices. As predicted, among those with little political experience, women were less likely than men to run for higher office, but experience closed this gender gap. A preregistered experiment among U.S.-based adults replicated the field findings and revealed that it was the increased self-confidence of experienced women that reduced the gender gap. The findings suggest experience, and the self-confidence that comes with it, is one lever for closing the gender gap in seeking to climb professional hierarchies.

Keywords

gender ambition status open data open materials preregistered

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abraham

(2020). Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: An examination of networking among entrepreneurs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 151–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219832813

Abraham

Botelho

Dobbin-Lamont

(2024). The (re)production of inequality in evaluations: A unifying framework outlining the drivers of gender and racial differences in evaluative outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior. Forthcoming.

Abraham

Burbano

(2022). Congruence between leadership gender and organizational claims affects the gender composition of the applicant pool: Field experimental evidence. Organization Science, 33(1), 393–413.

Adams

B. E.

Schreiber

(2011). Gender, campaign finance, and electoral success in municipal elections. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00508.x

Allison

P. D.

(1982). Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. Sociological Methodology, 13, 61–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/270718

Amanatullah

E. T.

Tinsley

C. H.

(2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much. . .or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006

Anderson

Galinsky

A. D.

(2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536.

Ansolabehere

Snyder

J. M.

Jr. (2002). The incumbency advantage in US elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal, 1(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1089/153312902760137578

Ban

Llaudet

Snyder

J. M.

(2016). Challenger quality and the incumbency advantage. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12109

10.

Barber

B. M.

Odean

(2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556400

11.

Barbulescu

Bidwell

(2013). Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science, 24(3), 737–756.

12.

Bauer

N. M.

(2016). The effects of counterstereotypic gender strategies on candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 38(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351

13.

Beck

Katz

J. N.

Tucker

(1998). Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1260–1288. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991857

14.

Bem

S. L.

Lenney

(1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078640

15.

Beyer

(1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 960–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.960

16.

Beyer

(1998). Gender differences in self-perception and negative recall biases. Sex Roles, 38(1), 103–133. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018768729602

17.

Beyer

Bowden

E. M.

(1997). Gender differences in self-perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of accuracy and bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297232005

18.

Bohren

J. A.

Imas

Rosenberg

(2019). The dynamics of discrimination: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 109(10), 3395–3436.

19.

Bostyn

D. H.

Sevenhant

Roets

(2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752640

20.

Botelho

Abraham

(2017). Pursuing quality: How search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multistage evaluation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4), 698–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217694358

21.

Botelho

T. L.

Gertsberg

(2022). The disciplining effect of status: Evaluator status awards and observed gender bias in evaluations. Management Science, 68(7), 5311–5329. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4161

22.

Bourdieu

(1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

23.

Bowles

H. R.

Babcock

Lai

(2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001

24.

Brace

(1984). Progressive ambition in the House: A probabilistic approach. Journal of Politics, 46(2), 556–571.

25.

Brands

R. A.

Fernandez-Mateo

(2017). Leaning out: How negative recruitment experiences shape women’s decisions to compete for executive roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3), 405–442.

26.

Briñol

Petty

R. E.

Valle

Rucker

D. D.

Becerra

(2007). The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1040–1053.

27.

Brown

Mansour

O’Connell

Reeves

(2023). Gender differences in political career progression. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4509081

28.

Burt-Way

B. J.

Kelly

R. M.

(1992). Gender and sustaining political ambition: A study of Arizona elected officials. The Western Political Quarterly, 45(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/448760

29.

Carroll

S. J.

(1985). Political elites and sex differences in political ambition: A reconsideration. Journal of Politics, 47(4), 1231–1243. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130817

30.

Carroll

S. J.

Sanbonmatsu

(2009, April 2–5). Gender and the decision to run for the state legislature [Paper presentation]. Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, United States.

31.

Center for American Women and Politics. (2024). Women in elective office 2024. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/current-numbers/women-elective-office-2024

32.

Chapman

D. S.

Uggerslev

K. L.

Carroll

S. A.

Piasentin

K. A.

Jones

D. A.

(2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–944.

33.

Cinamon

R. G.

Rich

(2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles: Implications for work-family conflict. Sex Roles, 47(11–12), 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022021804846

34.

Coffman

K. B.

(2014). Evidence on self-stereotyping and the contribution of ideas. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1625–1660. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju023

35.

Coffman

K. B.

Araya

P. U.

Zafar

(2021). A (dynamic) investigation of stereotypes, belief-updating, and behavior (Working Paper No. 29382). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w29382

36.

Coffman

K. B.

Collis

M. R.

Kulkarni

(2024). Stereotypes and belief updating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 22(3), 1011–1054. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvad063

37.

Correll

S. J.

(2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730. https://doi.org/10.1086/321299

38.

Cortes

Pan

Pilossoph

Zafar

(2021). Gender differences in job search and the earnings gap: Evidence from business majors (IZA Discussion Paper No. 14373). SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3851049

39.

Costantini

(1990). Political women and political ambition: Closing the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 76(2), 398–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111397

40.

Crowder-Meyer

(2013). Gendered recruitment without trying: How local party recruiters affect women’s representation. Politics & Gender, 9(4), 390–413. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X13000391

41.

Darcy

Schramm

S. S.

(1977). When women run against men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/268347

42.

Duxbury

L. E.

Higgins

C. A.

(1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.1.60

43.

Eagly

A. H.

Johannesen-Schmidt

M. C.

van Engen

M. L.

(2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569

44.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

45.

Elder

(2004). Why women don’t run: Explaining women’s underrepresentation in America’s political institutions. Women & Politics, 26(2), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1300/J014v26n02_02

46.

Elting

(2023, January 27). New year, new glass heights: Women now comprise 10% of top U.S. corporation CEOs. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizelting/2023/01/27/new-year-new-glass-heights-for-the-first-time-in-history-over-10-of-fortune-500-ceos-are-women

47.

Fernandez-Mateo

Fernandez

R. M.

(2016). Bending the pipeline? Executive search and gender inequality in hiring for top management jobs. Management Science, 62(12), 3636–3655.

48.

Foschi

(1989). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(3), 237–254.

49.

Foschi

(2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.21

50.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. L.

(2004). Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00069.x

51.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. L.

(2005). To run or not to run for office: Explaining nascent political ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 642–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00147.x

52.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. L.

(2010). If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990752

53.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. L.

(2014a). Reconciling family roles with political ambition: The new normal for women in twenty-first century U.S. politics. Journal of Politics, 76(2), 398–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001473

54.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. L.

(2014b). Uncovering the origins of the gender gap in political ambition. American Political Science Review, 108(3), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000227

55.

Fox

R. L.

Lawless

J. L.

Feeley

(2001). Gender and the decision to run for office. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(3), 411–435.

56.

Fukumoto

(2009). Systematically dependent competing risks and strategic retirement. American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 740–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00398.x

57.

Fulton

S. A.

(2012). Running backwards and in high heels: The gendered quality gap and incumbent electoral success. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911401419

58.

Fulton

S. A.

Maestas

C. D.

Maisel

L. S.

Stone

W. J.

(2006). The sense of a woman: Gender, ambition, and the decision to run for congress. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900206

59.

Galinsky

A. D.

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Magee

J. C.

(2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466.

60.

Galinsky

A. D.

Hall

E. V.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

(2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457783

61.

J. C.

Kang

S. K.

Tse

Toh

S. M.

(2019). Stereotypes at work: Occupational stereotypes predict race and gender segregation in the workforce. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, Article 103318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103318

62.

Heilman

M. E.

(1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.

63.

Heilman

M. E.

Martell

R. F.

Simon

M. C.

(1988). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions regulating the undervaluation, equivaluation, and overvaluation of female job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 98–110.

64.

Henrich

Gil-White

F. J.

(2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4

65.

Huddy

Terkildsen

(1993a). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 503–525. https://doi.org/10.2307/448945

66.

Huddy

Terkildsen

(1993b). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111526

67.

Jenkins

(2007). A woman’s work is never done? Fund-raising perception and effort among female state legislative candidates. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907301682

68.

Johnson

Oppenheimer

B. I.

Selin

J. L.

(2012). The House as a stepping stone to the Senate: Why do so few African American House members run? American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 387–399.

69.

Kahn

Huberman

(1988). Two-sided uncertainty and “up-or-out” contracts. Journal of Labor Economics, 6(4), 423–444.

70.

Kanthak

Woon

(2015). Women don’t run? Election aversion and candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12158

71.

Kelly

E. L.

(2003). The strange history of employer-sponsored child care: Interested actors, uncertainty, and the transformation of law in organizational fields. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 606–649. https://doi.org/10.1086/379631

72.

Koch

A. J.

D’Mello

S. D.

Sackett

P. R.

(2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036734

73.

Krook

M. L.

(2018). Violence against women in politics: A rising global trend. Politics & Gender, 14(4), 673–675. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X18000582

74.

Lawless

J. L.

Fox

R. L.

(2005). It takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. Cambridge University Press.

75.

Lawless

J. L.

Fox

R. L.

(2010). It still takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778797

76.

Leech

(2022, August 3). Report finds a continued lack of diversity on boards of Fortune 500 boards—Bizwomen. The Business Journals. https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2022/08/mogul-women-boards.html?page=all

77.

Liff

Ward

(2001). Distorted views through the glass ceiling: The construction of women’s understandings of promotion and senior management positions. Gender, Work and Organization, 8(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00120

78.

Magee

J. C.

Galinsky

(2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.

79.

Magee

J. C.

Galinsky

A. D.

Gruenfeld

D. H.

(2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 200–212.

80.

McGinn

K. L.

Milkman

K. L.

(2013). Looking up and looking out: Career mobility effects of demographic similarity among professionals. Organization Science, 24(4), 1041–1060.

81.

Niederle

Vesterlund

(2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067

82.

Pearson

McGhee

(2013). What it takes to win: Questioning gender neutral outcomes in U.S. House elections. Politics & Gender, 9(4), 439–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X13000433

83.

Peterson

D. A. M.

Grossback

L. J.

Stimson

J. A.

Gangl

(2003). Congressional response to mandate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00030

84.

Phillips

D. J.

Zuckerman

E. W.

(2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379–429. https://doi.org/10.1086/324072

85.

Pike

B. E.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2021). The power shield: Powerful roles eliminate gender disparities in political elections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000493

86.

Podolny

J. M.

(1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.

87.

Quintane

Kleinbaum

A. M.

(2011). Matter over mind? E-mail data and the measurement of social networks. Connections, 31(1), 22–46.

88.

R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org

89.

Ridgeway

C. L.

Boyle

E. H.

Kuipers

K. J.

Robinson

D. T.

(1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 331–350.

90.

Ridgeway

C. L.

Erickson

K. G.

(2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 579–615.

91.

Rohde

D. W.

(1979). Risk-bearing and progressive ambition: The case of members of the United States House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 1–26.

92.

Rosen

Jerdee

T. H.

(1974). Effects of applicant’s sex and difficulty of job on evaluations of candidates for managerial positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(4), 511–512.

93.

Rucker

D. D.

Galinsky

A. D.

Magee

J. C.

(2018). The agentic-communal model of advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 71–125.

94.

Sanbonmatsu

(2006). Do parties know that “women win”? Party leader beliefs about women’s electoral chances. Politics & Gender, 2, 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062101

95.

Sapiro

(1982). Private costs of public commitments or public costs of private commitments? Family roles versus political ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 265–279.

96.

Schneider

M. C.

Holman

M. R.

Diekman

A. B.

McAndrew

(2016). Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition. Political Psychology, 37(4), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12268

97.

Soll

J. B.

Klayman

(2004). Overconfidence in interval estimates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.299

98.

Spencer

S. J.

Logel

Davies

P. G.

(2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 415–437.

99.

Tenbrunsel

A. E.

Diekmann

K. A.

Wade-benzoni

K. A.

Bazerman

M. H.

(2010). Why we aren’t as ethical as we think we are: A temporal explanation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.004

100.

Thomsen

D. M.

King

A. S.

(2020). Women’s representation and the gendered pipeline to power. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 989–1000.

101.

Uhlaner

Schlozman

(1986). Candidate gender and congressional campaign receipts. Journal of Politics, 48(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130923

102.

U.S. House of Representatives. (n.d.). People search. Office of the Historian and the Clerk of the House’s Office of Art and Archives. https://history.house.gov/People/Search

103.

Wasserman

(2021). Up the political ladder: Gender parity in the effects of electoral defeats. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 111, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20211018

104.

Wasserman

(2023). Gender differences in politician persistence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 105(2), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01099

105.

Werner

Mayer

K. R.

(2007). Public election funding, competition, and candidate gender. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(4), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096507071053

106.

Wynn

A. T.

Correll

S. J.

(2017). Gendered perceptions of cultural and skill alignment in technology companies. Social Sciences, 6(2), Article 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6020045

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.

0.00 MB

0.46 MB