The literature addressing gender-based discrimination in promotion decisions has primarily focused on case studies of Fortune 500 companies or scenarios in which managers are asked to make simulated promotion decisions. Such studies are limited in both scope and generalizability. This research attempts to overcome these limitations by examining a large, random sample of female and male workers. Using survival analysis, we explore the period of time from the year of hire to the year promotion to supervisor is achieved. Avoiding bias that may be associated with analyses pertaining to a particular type of organization or sector of the economy, this investigation focuses on a particular career moment—procession to a primary rung of the career ladder. Findings support the existence of significant pro-male bias in promotion decisions unattributable to differences in time on the job, education, or parenting responsibilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 1993. “The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 1992–93.”Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors79(2): 9–90
2.
AckerJoan. 1987. “Sex Bias in Job Evaluation: A Comparable Worth Issue.” Pp. 183–96 in Ingredients for Women's Employment Policy, edited by BoseC.SpitzeG., New York: State University of New York Press
3.
AckerJoan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.”Gender and Society4: 139–58
4.
BeattyR. W.BeattyJ. R., 1984. “Some Problems with Contemporary Job Evaluation Systems.” Pp. 59–78 in Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination, edited by RemickH., Philadelphia: Temple University Press
5.
BemSandra L.1981. “Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing.”Psychological Review88: 354–64
6.
BemSandra L.1983. “Gender Schema Theory and Its Implications for Child Development: Raising Gender-Aschematic Children in a Gender-Schematic Society.”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society8: 598–616
7.
BrovermanI.VogelS.BrovermanD.ClarksonF.RosenkrantzP., 1972. “Sex-Role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal.”Journal of Social Issues28: 59–78
8.
Catalyst. 1996. Women and Corporate Leadership: Progress and Prospects. New York: Catalyst
9.
ChodorowNancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press
10.
CohenLisa E.BroschakJoseph P.HavemanHeather A., 1998. “And Then There Were More? The Effect of Organizational Sex Composition on the Hiring and Promotion of Managers.”American Sociological Review63: 711–27
11.
CollinsonD.1988. Barriers to Fair Selection: A Multi-Sectors Study of Recruitment Practices. London: HMSO
12.
DiPreteThomas A.1989. The Bureaucratic Labor Market: The Case of the Federal Civil Service. New York: Plenum
13.
DiPreteThomas A.SouleW. T., 1988. “Gender and Promotion in Segmented Job Ladder Systems.”American Sociological Review53: 26–40
14.
DiTomasoN.1989. “Sexuality in the Workplace: Discrimination and Harassment.” Pp. 71–90 in The Sexuality of Organizations, edited by HearnJ.SheppardD. L.Tancred-SheriffP.BurrellG., London: Sage
15.
EnglandPaulaMcCrearyL.1987. “Gender Inequality in Paid Employment.” Pp. 286–320 in Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research, edited by HessB. B.FerreeM. M., Newbury Park, CA: Sage
16.
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Department of Labor. 1995. Good For Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Capital. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
17.
FerreeM. M.1984. “Sacrifice, Satisfaction and Social Change: Employment and the Family.” Chapter 3 in My Troubles Are Going to Have Trouble with Me: Everyday Trials and Triumphs of Women Workers, edited by SacksK. B.RemyD.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press
18.
FiermanJaclyn. 1990. “Why Women Still Don't Hit the Top.”Fortune (July 30): 40–62
GoldinClaudia D.1990. Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women. New York: Oxford University Press
21.
GravesL.PowellG., 1988. “An Investigation of Sex-Discrimination in Recruiters' Evaluations of Actual Applicants.”Journal of Applied Psychology73: 63–73
22.
GrunigLarissa. 1989. “Sex Discrimination in Promotion and Tenure in Journalism Education.”Journalism Quarterly66(1): 93–100
23.
HalfordSusanSavageMikeWitzAnne. 1997. Gender, Careers and Organisations: Current Developments in Banking, Nursing and Local Government. London: Macmillan
24.
HarlanSharon L.1989. “Opportunity and Attitudes toward Job Advancement.”Social Forces67: 766–88
25.
HarlanSharon L.BerheideC. W., 1994. Barriers to Workplace Advancement Experienced by Women in Low-Paying Occupations: A Research Report. Albany, NY: Center for Women in Government
26.
HartmannHeidi. 1994. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union.” In Social Stratification: Race, Class, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, edited by GruskyD. B.Boulder, CO: Westview
27.
HermanJ. B.GyllstromK. K., 1977. “Working Men and Women: Inter- and Intra-Role Conflict.”Psychology of Women Quarterly1: 319–33
28.
HoutMichaelWrightErik OlinSanchez-JankowskiMartin. Comparative Project in Class analysis: United states and russia, 1990–1992 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Berkeley, CA: Michael Hout and Michael Burawoy, University of California, Syktyvkar, Komi A.S.S.R.: Pavel Krotov/Moscow, Russia: Valery Mansurov, Russian Academy of Sciences [producers], 1995. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1996
29.
HulinC. L.SmithP. C., 1964. “Sex Differences in Job Satisfaction.”Journal of Applied Psychology48: 88–92
30.
JohnsrudLinda K.1994. “Gender and Returns to Promotion: The Role of Social and Power Relations.”Social Science Research20(4): 369–96
31.
KaestnerRobert. 1994. “Some Empirical Evidence on the Use of Gender Specific Promotion Rules.”Eastern Economic Journal20: 201–18
32.
KallebergArne L.ReskinBarbara F., 1993. “Sex Differences in Promotion Experiences in the United States and Norway.” R.C. No. 28. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association Meeting, Durham, NC
33.
KanterRosabeth M.1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books
34.
KohlbergL.1966. “A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Children's Sex-Role Concepts and Attitudes.” Pp. 82–193 in The Development of Sex Differences, edited by MaccobyE. E., Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
35.
KohnM. L.SchoolerC., 1978. “The Reciprocal Effects of the Substantive Complexity of Work and Intellectual Flexibility: A Longitudinal Assessment.”American Journal of Sociology84: 24–52
36.
KulisStephen. 1997. “Gender Segregation among College and University Employees.”Sociology of Education70: 151–73
37.
McIntyreS.MohbergD. J.PosnerB. Z., 1980. “Preferential Treatment in Preselection Decisions according to Sex and Race.”Academy of Management Journal23: 738–49
38.
MillerJ.1980. “Individual and Occupational Determinants of Job Satisfaction.”Sociology of Work and Occupations7: 337–67
39.
MussenP. H.1969. “Early Sex-Role Development.” Pp. 707–31in Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, edited by GoslinD. A., Chicago: Rand McNally
40.
NievaVeronica F.GutekBarbara A., 1981. Women and Work: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Praeger
41.
OttingerC.SikulaR., 1993. “Women in Higher Education: Where Do We Stand?” Research Briefs 4, no. 2. Washington, DC: Division of Policy Analysis and Research, American Council on Education
42.
ParsonsTalcott. 1954. “Age and Sex in the Social Structure of the United States.” Pp. 16–58 in Structure and Process in Modern Societies, edited by ParsonsT., New York: Free Press
43.
QuinnRobert P.StainesGraham L., 1979. The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
44.
RemickHelen. 1979. “Strategies for Creating Sound Bias-Free Job Evaluation Systems.” Pp. 85–112 in Job Evaluation and EEO: The Emerging Issues. New York: Industrial Relations Counselors
45.
RemickHelen. 1984. “Major Issues in A Priori Applications.” Pp. 99–117 in Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination, edited by RemickH., Philadelphia: Temple University Press
46.
ReskinBarbara F.HartmannHeidi. 1986. Women's Work, Men's Work: Sex Segregation on the Job. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
47.
ReskinBarbara F.RoosPatricia A., 1987. “Status Hierarchies and Sex Segregation.” Chap. 1 in Ingredients for Women's Employment Policy, edited by BoseC.SpitzeG., New York: State University of New York Press
48.
TiendaMartaOrtizV., 1987. “Intraindustry Occupational Recomposition and Gender Inequality in Earnings.” Pp. 23–51 in Ingredients for Women's Employment Policy, edited by BoseC.SpitzeG., New York: State University of New York Press
49.
Tomascovic-DeveyDonald. 1993. Gender and Racial Inequality at Work. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press
50.
Tomascovic-DeveyDonaldKallebergArne L.MarsdenP. V., 1996. “Organizational Patterns of Gender Segregation.” Pp. 276–301 in Organizations in America: Analyzing Their Structures and Human Resource Practices, edited by KallebergA. L.KnokeD.MarsdenP. V.SpaethJ. L., London: Sage
51.
TreimanD. J.1984. “Effect of Choice of Factors and Factor Weights in Job Evaluation.” Pp. 79–89 in Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination, edited by RemickH., Philadelphia: Temple University Press
52.
TreimanDonald J.HartmannHeidi. 1981. Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences
53.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and Earnings, January1990. Cited in Labor Force, Employment, and Earnings, Table No. 653. Employment, by Industry: 1970 to 1994. www.census.gov/prod/1/gen/95statab/labor.pdf
54.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1990 Diennial Census. www.census.gov
55.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Statistics. 1987. The Condition of Education, 1987 Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
