Critical mass theory and the tokenism hypothesis propose that females’ job performance is adversely affected by perceptions and experiences that stem from females comprising a smaller proportion of organizations than males. Although belief in the gender token effect appears to be widely held, empirical evidence of this effect is relatively scarce; furthermore, the evidence that does exist is somewhat inconsistent. The purpose of the present study was to provide a meta-analytic test of the gender token effect by examining the extent to which the proportion of females in organizations relates to male–female differences in job performance. Meta-analytic results based on data from 158 independent studies (N = 101,071) reveal that (a) females tend to demonstrate higher job performance than males (d = −.10), and (b) this difference does not appear to vary based on the proportion of females in organizations. We found similar results for subjective task performance (e.g., supervisory ratings), organizational citizenship behaviors, and objective task performance (e.g., sales). Overall, this study’s results demonstrate almost no support for the gender token effect on job performance, which challenges the prevailing assumptions of critical mass theory and the tokenism hypothesis.
AguinisH.GottfredsonR. K.JooH. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 270-301.
2.
AytugZ. G.RothsteinH. R.ZhouW.KernM. C. (2012). Revealed or concealed? Transparency of procedures, decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 103-133.
3.
BaronJ. N. (1984). Organizational perspectives on stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 37-69.
4.
BealD. J.CoreyD. M.DunlapW. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-analysis of correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 583-589.
5.
BergerJ.WebsterM. (2006). Expectations, status, and behavior. In BurkeP. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 268-300). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
BiernatM. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58, 1019-1027.
7.
BiernatM.KobrynowiczD. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557.
8.
BiernatM.ManisM.NelsonT. E. (1991). Stereotypes and standards of judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 485-499.
9.
Bobbitt-ZeherD. (2011). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender stereotypes, institutional policies, and gender composition of the workplace. Gender & Society, 25, 764-786.
10.
BowenC. C.SwimJ. K.JacobsR. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on actual job performance of real people: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2194-2215.
11.
BrutusS.AguinisH.WassmerU. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Management, 39, 48-75.
12.
CarlsonK. D.JiF. X. (2011). Citing and building on meta-analytic findings: A review and recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 696-717.
13.
CascioW. F. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
14.
CascioW. F.AguinisH. (2011). Applied psychology in human resource management (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
15.
ClevelandJ. N.VescioT. K.Barnes-FarrellJ. L. (2005). Gender discrimination in organizations. In DipboyeR.ColellaA. (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 149-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
CourtrightS. H.McCormickB. W.PostlethwaiteB. E.ReevesC. J.MountM. K. (2013). A meta-analysis of sex differences in physical ability: Revised estimates and strategies for reducing differences in selection contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 623-641.
18.
DaltonD. R.AguinisH.DaltonC. M.BoscoF. A.PierceC. A. (2012). Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and nonpublished correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65, 221-249.
19.
DavisonH. K.BurkeM. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225-248.
20.
DovidoJ. F.HeblM. R. (2005). Discrimination at the level of the individual: Cognitive and affective factors. In DipboyeR.ColellaA. (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 11-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J.MakhijaniM. G. (1995). Gender and effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145.
22.
FogartyT. J.ParkerL. M.RobinsonT. (1998). Where the rubber meets the road: Performance evaluation and gender in large public accounting organizations. Women in Management Review, 13, 299-231.
23.
FrinkD. D.RobinsonR. K.ReithelB.ArthurM. M.AmmeterA. P.FerrisG. R.. . . MorrisetteH. S. (2003). Gender demography and organization performance: A two-study investigation with convergence. Group & Organization Management, 28, 127-147.
24.
GlickP.ZionC.NelsonC. (1988). What mediates sex discrimination in hiring decisions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 178-186.
25.
GoldbergC.CohenD. J. (2004). Walking the walk and talking the talk: Gender differences in the impact of interviewing skills on applicant assessments. Group & Organization Management, 29, 369-384.
26.
GustafsonJ. L. (2008). Tokenism in policing: An empirical test of Kanter’s hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 1-10.
27.
HeilmanM. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 269-298). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
28.
HeilmanM. E.EaglyA. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 393-398.
29.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81-92.
30.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.
31.
HelmickT. A. (1987). The effect of gender, job classification and self-esteem upon job performance (Unpublished master’s thesis). Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg.
32.
HiltonJ. L.FeinS. (1989). The role of typical diagnosticity in stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 201-211.
33.
HooblerJ. M.MastersonC. R.NkomoS. M.MichelE. J. (2016). The business case for women leaders: Meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. Journal of Management, 44, 2473-2499. doi:10.1177/0149206316628643
34.
HuffcuttA. I.ArthurW. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327-334.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
37.
JawaharI. M.WilliamsC. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905-992.
38.
JoecksJ.PullK.VetterK. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass?”Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 61-72.
39.
JoshiA.LiaoH.JacksonS. E. (2006). Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales performance and pay. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 459-481.
40.
JoshiA.NeelyB.EmrichC.GriffithsD.GeorgeG. (2015). Gender research in AMJ: An overview of five decades of empirical research and calls to action. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1459-1475.
41.
JoshiA.RohH. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599-627.
42.
JoshiA.SonJ.RohH. (2015). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1516-1545.
43.
KanterR. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
44.
KanterR. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-999.
45.
KepesS.BanksG. C.McDanielM.WhetzelD. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 624-662.
46.
KepesS.McDanielM. A.BrannickM. T.BanksG. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the meta-analytic reporting standards). Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 123-143.
47.
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, 482-451.
48.
KochA. J.D’MelloS. D.SackettP. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128-161.
49.
KundaZ.ThagardP. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103, 284-308.
50.
LandyF. J. (2009). Performance ratings: Then and now. In OuttzJ. L. (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection (pp. 227-248). New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
LandyF. J.FarrJ. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
52.
LandyF. J.FarrJ. L.SaalF. E.FreytagW. R. (1976). Behaviorally anchored scales for rating the performance of police officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 750-758.
53.
LawsJ. L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles, 1, 51-67.
54.
LeH.OhI. S.ShafferJ.SchmidtF. (2007). Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: How practitioners benefit from meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3), 6-15.
55.
LeslieL. M.GelfandM. J. (2008). The who and when of internal gender discrimination claims: An interactional model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 123-114.
56.
LocksleyA.BorgidaE.BrekkeN.HepburnC. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 821-831.
57.
LynessK. S.SchraderC. A. (2006). Moving ahead or just moving? An examination of gender differences in senior corporate management appointments. Group & Organization Management, 31, 651-676.
58.
McCarthyJ. M.Van IddekingeC. H.CampionM. A. (2010). Are highly structured job interviews resistant to demographic similarity effects?Personnel Psychology, 63, 325-359.
59.
McDanielM. A.RothsteinH. R.WhetzelD. L. (2006). Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors. Personnel Psychology, 59, 927-953.
60.
McKayP. F.McDanielM. A. (2006). A reexamination of Black-White mean differences in work performance: More data, more moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 538-554.
61.
MilkmanK. L.McGinnK. L. (2010, August). Will I stay or will I go: Cooperative and competitive effects of relational demography on turnover. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
62.
MischelW.ShodaY. (2010). The situated person. In MesquitaB.BarrettL.SmithE. (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 149-173). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
63.
MosierC. I. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite. Psychometrika, 8, 161-168.
64.
MotowidloS. J.BormanW. C.SchmitM. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83.
65.
MotowidloS. J.Van ScotterJ. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.
66.
NievaV. F.GutekB. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 5, 267-276.
67.
OlianJ. D.SchwabD. P.HaberfieldY. (1988). The impact of applicant gender compared to qualifications on hiring recommendations: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 180-195.
68.
OlsenJ. E.ParsonsC. K.MartinsL. L.IvanajV. (2016). Gender diversity programs, perceived potential for advancement, and organizational attractiveness: An empirical examination of women in the United States and France. Group & Organization Management, 41, 271-309.
69.
OrganD. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
70.
OstroffC.AtwaterL. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group gender and age composition on managers’ compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 725-774.
71.
OttE. M. (1989). Effects of the male-female ratio at work. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 41-57.
72.
PfefferJ.Davis-BlakeA. (1987). The effect of the proportion of women on salaries: The case of college administrators. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 1-24.
73.
PrattoF.BarghJ. A. (1991). Stereotyping based on apparently individuating information: Trait and global components of sex stereotypes under attention overload. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 26-47.
74.
ReskinB. F. (2000). The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 319-328.
75.
ReskinB. F.HartmannH. I. (1986). Women’s work, men’s work. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
76.
ReskinB. F.McBrierD. B.KmecJ. A. (1999). The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 335-361.
77.
RiordanC. M.SchafferB. S.StewartM. M. (2005). Relational demography within groups: Through the lens of discrimination. In DipboyeR.ColellaA. (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 37-62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78.
RothP. L.PurvisK. L.BobkoP. (2012). A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. Journal of Management, 38, 719-739.
79.
SackettP. R.DuboisC. L. Z.NoeA. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and white-black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263-267.
80.
SchmidtF. L.LeH. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Iowa City: Department of Management and Organizations, University of Iowa.
81.
SchwabA.WerbelJ. D.HofmannH.HenriquesP. L. (2016). Managerial gender diversity and firm performance: An integration of different theoretical perspectives. Group & Organization Management, 41, 5-31.
82.
ShoreL. M.ThorntonG. C. (1986). Effects of gender on self- and supervisory ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 115-129.
83.
ShossM. K.EisenbergerR.RestubogS. L. D.ZagenczykT. J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158-168.
84.
StoneT. H.FosterJ.WebsterB.HarrisonJ.JawaharI. M. (2016). Gender differences in supervisors’ multidimensional performance ratings: Large sample evidence. Human Performance, 29, 428-446.
85.
TaylorE. K.WherryR. J. (1951). A study of leniency in two rating systems. Personnel Psychology, 4, 39-47.
86.
ThomasK. M.Chrobot-MasonD. (2005). Group-level explanations of workplace discrimination. In DipboyeR.ColellaA. (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 63-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
87.
TsuiA. S.GutekB. A. (1984). A role set analysis of gender differences in performance, affective relationships, and career success of industrial middle managers. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 619-635.
88.
Van DijkH.Van EngenM. L.Van KnippenbergD. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 38-53.
89.
ViswesvaranC.OnesD. S.SchmidtF. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557-574.
90.
WoodJ. (2008). Methodology for dealing with duplicate effects in a meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 79-95.
91.
WoodW.KartenS. J. (1986). Sex difference in interaction style as a product of perceived differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341-347.
92.
YoderJ. D.AdamsJ.PrinceH. T. (1983). The price of a token. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 11, 325-337.
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.
