Gender inequalities in the workplace persist, and scholars point to gender discrimination as a significant contributor. As organizations attempt to address this problem, we argue that theory can help shed light on potential solutions. This paper discusses how the lack of fit model can be used by organizations as a framework to understand the process that facilitates gender discrimination in employment decisions and to identify intervention strategies to combat it. We describe two sets of strategies. The first is aimed at reducing the perception that women are not suited for male-typed positions. The second is aimed at preventing the negative performance expectations that derive from this perception of unsuitability from influencing evaluative judgments. Also included is a discussion of several unintentional consequences that may follow from enacting these strategies. We conclude by arguing for the importance of the interplay between theory and practice in targeting gender discrimination in the workplace.
AlksnisC.DesmaraisS.CurtisJ. (2008). Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: Is “women’s” work valued as highly as “men’s”?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1416–1441. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00354.x
2.
BauerC.BaltesB. (2002). Reducing the effects of gender stereotypes on performance evaluations. Sex Roles, 47, 465–476. doi:10.1023/A:1021652527696
3.
BehaghelL.CreponB.Le BarbachonT. (2015). Unintended effects of anonymous résumés. American Economic Journal, 7, 1–27. doi:10.1257/app.20140185
4.
BemS. L.BemD. L. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 6–18. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb01290.x
5.
BezrukovaK.SpellC. S.PerryJ. L.JehnK. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1227–1274. doi:10.1037/bul0000067
6.
BiernatM.FuegenK. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 707–724. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00237
7.
BiernatM.FuegenK.KobrynowiczD. (2010). Shifting standards and the inference of incompetence: Effects of formal and informal evaluation tools. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 855–868. doi:10.1177/0146167210369483
8.
BradyL.KaiserC.MajorB.KirbyT. (2015). It’s fair for us: Diversity structures cause women to legitimize discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 100–110. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.11.010
9.
BraggerJ.KutcherE. J.MorganJ.FirthP. (2002). The effects of structured interview on reducing biases against pregnant job applicants. Sex Roles, 26, 215–226. doi:10.1023/A:1019967231059
10.
BrescollV.DawsonE.UhlmannE. L. (2010). Hard won and easily lost: The fragile status of leaders in gender stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychological Science, 21, 1640–1642. doi:10.1177/0956797610384744
11.
CaleoS.HeilmanM. E. (2014, May). Who gets credit? Reactions to men’s and women’s joint work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.
12.
CarnesM.DevineP. G.BaierM. L.Byars-WinstonA.FineE.FordC. E.. . . SheridanJ. (2015). The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: A cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine, 90, 221–230. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552
13.
CasciaroT.Sousa-LoboM. (2005). Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks. Harvard Business Review, 83, 92–99.
14.
CastillaE. J. (2008). Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1479–1526. doi:10.1086/588738
15.
CastillaE. J. (2015). Accounting for the gap: A firm study manipulating organizational accountability and transparency in pay decisions. Organization Science, 26, 311–333. doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0950
CejkaM. A.EaglyA. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the gender segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423. doi:10.1177/0146167299025004002
18.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239
19.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. (2008). Unpacking outcome dependency: Differentiating effects of dependency and outcome desirability on the processing of goal-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 586–599. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.11.004
20.
CotaA. A.DionK. L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups: An experimental test of distinctiveness theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 770–776. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.770
21.
DanaJ.DawesR.PetersonN. (2013). Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 512–520.
22.
DanboldF.BenderskyC. (2015, July). Expanding what it means to be a “true” firefighter: Strategies for increasing inclusivity in homogeneous environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research, Pittsburgh, PA.
23.
DarleyJ. M.FazioR. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867–881. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867
24.
DasguptaN.AsgariS. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642–658. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27.
DuguidM. M.Thomas-HuntM. C. (2015). Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 343–359. doi:10.1037/a0037908
28.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
30.
FiskeS. T. (2000). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. London, UK: SAGE.
32.
GaucherD.FriesenJ.KayA. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 109–128. doi:10.1037/a0022530
33.
GilbertD. T.HixonJ. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509–517. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.509
34.
GoldinC.RouseC. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. The American Economic Review, 90, 715–741. doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.715
35.
GuyM. E.Duerst-LahtiG. (1992). Agency culture and its effect on managerial behavior. In GuyM. E. (Ed.), Women and men of the states: Public administrators at the state level (pp. 157–188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
36.
HainesE. L.DeauxK.LofaroN. (2016). The times they are a-changing. . . or are they not? A comparison of components of gender stereotypes, 1983 to 2014. Sex Roles, 40, 353–363. doi:10.1177/0361684316634081
37.
HarrisM. M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20, 737–756. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(94)90028-0
38.
HeilmanM. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
39.
HeilmanM. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234
40.
HeilmanM. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
41.
HeilmanM. E.BladerS. (2001). Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: The effects of gender rarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 188–193. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.188
42.
HeilmanM. E.BlockC. J.StathatosP. (1997). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 603–625. doi:10.2307/257055
43.
HeilmanM. E.HaynesM. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male–female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 905–916. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905
44.
HeilmanM. E.HaynesM. C. (2008). Subjectivity in the appraisal process: A facilitator of gender bias in work settings. In BorgidaE.FiskeS. T. (Eds.), Beyond common knowledge: Psychological science in court (pp. 127–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male-typed tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
46.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 189–198. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.189
47.
HeilmanM. E.StopeckM. H. (1985). Attractiveness and corporate success: Different causal attributions for males and females. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 379–388. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.379
48.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-type tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416
49.
HeilmanM. E.WelleB. (2006). Disadvantaged by diversity? The effects of diversity goals on competence perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1291–1319. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00043.x
50.
HighhouseS. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 333–342. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00058.x
51.
HollingsheadA. B.FraidinS. N. (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 355–363. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00549-8
52.
HorvathL. K.SczesnyS. (2015). Reducing women’s lack of fit with leadership? Effects of the wording of job advertisements. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2, 316–328. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2015.1067611
ItoT. A.UrlandG. R. (2003). Race and gender on the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 616–626. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.616
55.
JacksonS. M.HillardA. L.SchneiderT. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 17, 419–438. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5
56.
JohnsonS. K.MurphyS. E.ZewdieS.ReichardR. J. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 39–60. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.12.002
57.
JohnstonL.HewstoneM. (1990). Intergroup contact: Social identity and social cognition. In AbramsD.HoggM. A. (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 185–210). New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
58.
JonesK. P.PeddieC. I.GilraneV. L.KingE. B.GrayA. L. (2016). Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal of Management, 42, 1588–1613. doi:10.1177/0149206313506466
59.
KalevA.DobbinF.KellyE. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404
60.
KanterR. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990. doi:10.1086/226425
61.
KimM. (2015). Pay secrecy and the gender wage gap in the United States. Industrial Relations, 54, 648–667. doi:10.1111/irel.12109
62.
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. doi:10.1177/0149206308328508
KlimoskiR.InksL. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194–208. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90011-W
65.
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. doi:10.1037/a0036734
66.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642. doi:10.1037/a0023557
67.
KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D.ThompsonL. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 386–409. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2979
68.
KulikC. T.RobersonL. (2008). Common goals and golden opportunities: Evaluations of diversity education in academic and organizational settings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 309–331. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251670
69.
LernerJ. S.TetlockP. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
70.
LevanonA.EnglandP.AllisonP. (2009). Occupational feminization and pay: Assessing causal dynamics using 1950–2000 U.S. Census data. Social Forces, 88, 865–892. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0264
71.
LevashinaJ.HartwellC. J.MorgesonF. P.CampionM. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241–293. doi:10.1111/peps.12052
LynessK. S.HeilmanM. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777
74.
MaderaJ. M.HeblM. R.MartinR. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academics: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1591–1599. doi:10.1037/a0016539
75.
ManziM. F.CaleoS.HeilmanM. E. (2014, February). A change will (not) do you good: The detrimental effects of stereotype-based expectations on the evaluation of changes in women’s performance. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX.
76.
ManziM. F.HeilmanM. E. (2016, August). Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of female leaders on other women’s evaluations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
77.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1985). Ambiguity and choice in organizations (2nd ed.). Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
78.
MartellR. F. (1996). What mediates gender bias in work behavior ratings?Sex Roles, 35, 153–169. doi:10.1007/BF01433104
79.
MeroN. P.GuidiceR. M.BrownleeA. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 223–252. doi:10.1177/0149206306297633
80.
MeroN. P.MotowidloS. J.AnnaA. L. (2003). Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2493–2514. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02777.x
81.
MerrittA. C.EffronD. A.MoninB. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344–357. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x
82.
MoninB.MillerD. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33
National Science Foundation. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
86.
NeubergS. L.FiskeS. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.3.431
87.
NortonM. I.VandelloJ. A.DarleyJ. M. (2004). Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 817–831. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.817
88.
PaluckE. L.GreenD. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A critical look at evidence from the field and the laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607
89.
PazyA.OronI. (2001). Sex proportion and performance evaluation among high-ranking military officers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 689–702. doi:10.1002/job.109
90.
PendryL. F.MacraeC. M. (1994). Stereotypes and mental life: The case of the motivated but thwarted tactician. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 303–325. doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1015.
91.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
92.
PurkissS. L.PerreweP. L.GillespieT. L.MayesB. T.FerrisG. R. (2006). Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 152–167. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.005
93.
RichardsZ.HewstoneM. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processing for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52–73. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_4
94.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00239
95.
RyanM. K.HaslamS. A.MorgenrothT.RinkF.StokerJ.PetersK. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 446–455. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008
96.
SackettP. R.DuboisC. L.NoeA. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male–female and Black–White differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.263
97.
SarsonsH. (2017). Recognition for group work: Gender differences in academia. American Economic Review, 107, 141–145. doi:10.1257/aer.p20171126
98.
ScheinE. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
99.
ScheinV. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00235
100.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 124, 262–274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
101.
SchneiderB. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x
102.
ScholtenL.van KnippenbergD.NijstadB. A.De DreuK. W. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539–552. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.010
103.
SczesnyS.FormanowiczM.MoserF. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination?Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 25. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025
SlaughterA. M. (2015). Unfinished business: Women, men, work, family. New York, NY: Random House.
106.
SmythF. L.NosekB. A. (2015). On the gender–science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 415. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415
107.
StangorC.LynchL.DuanC.GlasB. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207–218. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.207
Van BavelJ. J.CunninghamW. A. (2009). Self-categorization with a novel mixed-race group moderates automatic social and racial biases. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 321–335. doi:10.1177/0146167208327743
114.
WeberR.CrockerJ. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961–977. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961
115.
WelleB.HeilmanM. E. (2005). Formal and informal discrimination against women at work: The role of gender stereotypes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
