Article history:Received 10 April 2015Received in revised form 10 November 2015Accepted 18 November 2015Available online 15 January 2016
Editors: Alice Eagly and Madeline Heilman
Women are still not progressing into executive, CEO or board roles in substantial numbers. Weargue that gendered forces operating at societal, organizational, and individual levels inhibitthe accumulation of valuable career capital. These forces, typically in combination across a va-riety of contexts in the life-cycle, create substantial and cumulative limitations upon the abilityof women to access and to accumulate the capital required to progress into executive roles infirms. We define this valuable capital for the role of the senior executive and explore thetiming and interplay of critical forces that limit the acquisition and development of valuablecapital for women. In particular, it is proposed that these forces can be mitigated by the corpo-rate elite who, as board chairs and CEOs, can enhance the ability of middle and senior femalemanagers to access and to acquire the additional valuable career capital required to progress toexecutive leadership roles.
The Global Financial Crisis with its corporate collapses and the near breakdown of the financial services sector has prompted arenewed focus on the leadership of CEOs and their executive teams and the regulatory environment within which corporations op-erate (Claessens and Kodres, 2014). Many argue that the obliteration of trillions of dollars in value from the world economy duringand after the Global Financial Crisis was linked not only to poor oversight of corporations by the corporate regulators, but also tothe selection of predominantlymale CEOswho adopted the style of hero leaderswith little effective oversight of them by their boards(Basin, 2015;McCann, 2013). In the years since the Global Financial Crisis we have seen regulators, boards, and shareholders increas-ingly question the appropriateness of CEO selections based upon the heroic CEO model (see Khurana, 2001, 2004).
Further challenging this choice of the heroic CEO persona is the contemporary leadership literature. Since the spectacular col-lapse of Enron, and with growing urgency since the Global Financial Crisis, studies are highlighting the positive impact upon cor-porate performance of ethical (Ciani, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis, 2014; Johnson, 2011), distributed (Gronn, 2002; Pearce andSims, 2002), transformational (Vinkenburg, van Engen, Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2011), and authentic (Gardner, Cogliser,Davis and Dickens, 2011; Neider and Schriesheim, 2011) styles of leadership. All of which differ quite considerably from thehero leader model. Parallel to this literature, significant differences have been established between men and women in leadershipand its enactment (Eagly and Carli, 2007). For example, meta-analyses of 1990s research by van Engen and Willemsen (2004)revealed that women tend to adopt a more democratic or participative style than men. On measures of behaviors that increase
leader effectiveness – transformational and contingent reward transactional leadership – women consistently outscore men (Bass,Avolio and Atwater, 1996; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and van Engen, 2003; Parry, 2000). Nonetheless, despite the growing pres-sures on regulators and corporate boards to review their CEO selection criteria, and a well-established academic literature show-ing the virtues of the more collaborative and authentic styles of leadership that should advantage female job candidates (Gardneret al., 2011; Nichols and Erakovic, 2013), still relatively few women are reaching the executive ranks in our large corporations(Catalyst, 2014; McKinsey, 2013). In short, the progress of women in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe and Australiainto executive, CEO, and board roles is at best described as “glacial” (Catalyst, 2012; Smedley, 2013).
In this paper we propose that a wide variety of gendered forces are at play and operate across a number of key contexts overthe employee life cycle. These forces inhibit the accumulation of a range of key capitals in women that are required to progresstoward the C-suite. Also, these gendered forces limit the opportunities for these capitals to be tested and refined in specific cor-porate contexts which are viewed by boards and their selection committees as critical to progress to more senior appointments(Fitzsimmons, Callan and Paulsen, 2014; Kaplan, Klebanov and Sorensen, 2012). In the next section, we outline a conceptualframework which uses a capital perspective to structure our arguments for an alternative and more holistic explanation of whyso few women today are entering the C-suite.
Conceptualizing what is valuable capital
In two previous studies we applied the key constructs of the Bourdieusian framework to examine the appointment of men andwomen to executive and CEO positions in medium to large corporations (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014; Fitzsimmons and Callan,2015a). In the current paper, we again apply the Bourdieusian framework. This framework expressly considers embodied capabil-ities as valuable capital and explores how the domination of one group of individuals, namely male CEOs, can inter-generationallyreproduce these views about capital without widespread resistance (Lane, 2000; Reed-Danahay, 2005; Swartz, 1997). The frame-work applies the epistemological tools of “field”, “habitus”, and “capital” to provide an explanatory lens to investigate why genderdisparity in executive and CEO positions continues to occur (Bourdieu, Chamboredon and Passeron, 1991; Thompson, 2008).
The Bourdieusian (1990) conception of a field is that it comprises the structure of the social setting in which an individualoperates. Fields, such as the corporate field, can be seen as arenas where the struggle for legitimation of particular volumesand structures of capital occur (Swartz, 1997; Webb, Schirato and Danaher, 2002). Some people within the field are able to dom-inate it, pass judgments, and have their judgments enforced (Lawler, 2004; Scott, 1992). They have the ability to designate what isconsidered to be valuable capital and the preferred contexts in which that capital is generated. In the corporate field, chairpersonsrepresent such a group. As dominant players they have the capacity to impose their “legitimate vision of the social world”, whichusually replicates their own composition of capitals (Swartz, 1997). Bourdieu (1990) also envisioned a field as a “force” or “mag-netic field” which repels from its higher levels those individuals whose background has not provided them with the volumes andstructures of capital considered to be valuable by the field, while at the same time attracting those whose capital composition is amatch (Swartz, 1997:119). Fields are therefore structured spaces with forces in play that create a hierarchically organized systemaround specific types and combinations of capital.
Habitus is the sum of the ways in which we act, feel, think, and hold ourselves out to the world and captures the notion ofembodied history or the socially produced self (Lawler, 2004; Maton, 2008). Reed-Danahay (2005) noted that the habitus isformed partially from a process of deliberate formal teaching and learning, but primarily generated through immersion in thesocio-cultural milieu of the early family environment and schooling. Bourdieu maintained that the childhood years were themost important in habitus formation (Jenkins, 2002; Maton, 2008). Through observing and listening to those around them, chil-dren internalize appropriate ways of behaving and interpreting the world around them, thus acquiring the capital associated withtheir habitus (Reed-Danahay, 2005; Webb et al., 2002).
In choosing to take a purely capital perspective in examining gender inequality in executive roles, we relied upon Bourdieu's(1977: 178) definition of capital: “…all goods, material and symbolic, without distinction, that present themselves as rare andworthy of being sought after in a particular social formation.” Capital extends to all forms of power whether they are material,cultural, social or symbolic that can be drawn upon to maintain or enhance a position in the social hierarchy or, in this case,the appointment to executive roles (Swartz, 1997; Webb et al., 2002). Each individual has a particular volume and compositionof capital and hence what is at stake in any field is the accumulation of valuable capitals (Svendsen and Svendsen, 2004;Thompson, 2008). In addition, Bourdieu proposed a theory of symbolic violence whereby dominant players impose systems ofsymbolism that reinforce existing capital compositions as worthy (Jenkins, 2002; Krais, 1993). Jenkins (2002: 105) notes thatthe “mainstay of the exercise of symbolic violence is the imposition of a cultural arbitrary”. The selection criteria for progressinto executive and CEO roles represents such a cultural arbitrary. We will argue that this arbitrary is reinforced and reproducedby chairpersons rewarding, through executive appointments, what they have determined as the worthy composition of capital.We also argue that forces which preclude women from obtaining this valuable combination of capital are largely responsiblefor the exclusion of many women from executive roles (Jenkins, 2002; Swartz, 1997).
Valuable capital in the corporate field
As argued by Bourdieu (1990), and supported by the findings in our previous studies (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014; Fitzsimmonsand Callan, 2015a), the degree of overlap between the capital possessed within the habitus of the manager/executive/CEO andwhat is valued by chairpersons, determines the likely success (or lack of success) of these managers/executives/CEOs in gaining
appointment or promotion (Grenfell, 2008; Swartz, 1997). As others have found, organizations have an implicit concept of theideal member who can rise to become a leader (Pinnington and Sandberg, 2013; Williams, 2000). In Western organizations,the ideal member has traditionally come to be seen as someone who works long hours, contributes above and beyond theirpeers, is highly competent in critical areas of a business, and is willing to relocate to new and often remote locations to developtheir capabilities (Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2015a). In these contexts, it is easy to observe the individual who makes obvious per-sonal sacrifices on behalf of the organization (Williams, 2000).
In a recent paper (Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2015b) it was established that contrary to past research (Glick, 2011; Hoffman,Schniederjans and Sebora, 2004), there is a very narrow set of career capitals required to be appointed to the CEO role. Manyof these capitals are closely aligned to the characteristics described as belonging to authentic, ethical, transformational, andmore collaborative leaders (Gardner et al., 2011; Neider and Schriesheim, 2011). In addition, many of these capitals are repeatedlyidentified in contemporary leadership theory to the extent that Nichols and Erakovic (2013: 182) propose that they represent a“normative view” of leader characteristics in the corporate world. However, our findings also revealed that CEO career capitals arevalued by firms only where they are accrued in specific industry or organizational contexts. In making such assessments, chair-persons use the candidate's track record, which is a configuration of human and social capital, as the dominant lens to investigateand validate if a CEO candidate has the career capitals that match the current contextual demands being faced by their firms (seeFitzsimmons and Callan, 2015b).
In our recent study, based on interviews with 162 corporate elites (chairs, CEOs, executive recruiters), we identified sevenvaluable capitals, six human capitals and a seventh social capital which we termed as “visibility” (Fitzsimmons and Callan,2015b). Many of these human capitals have been reported by other investigators: leadership (see also Eagly, 2005; George andSims, 2007); strategy (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans and May, 2004; Avolio and Gardner, 2005); intelligence (Neiderand Schriesheim, 2011); integrity (Diddams and Chang, 2012; Shamir and Eilam, 2005; Whitehead, 2009); self-efficacy(Gardner et al., 2011); stewardship (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Begley, 2004); and visibility or social capital (George, 2003;Westphal and Zajac, 2013). Chairpersons associated leadership with the ability to deliver a strategic vision or a change agendathrough more collaborative or distributed styles of leadership (see also Buyl, Boone, Hendriks and Matthyssens, 2011; Vera andCrossan, 2004). In addition, leadership and integrity were viewed by chairpersons as capitals which complement one anotherin creating sustained firm performance and trust among executive team members and the board (see also Peterson, Galvin andLange, 2012; Resick, Whitman, Weingarden and Hiller, 2009).
In the same study (Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2015b), it was found that the capitals of stewardship and intelligence were like-wise interconnected by chairpersons. Executive and CEO candidates were required to understand all aspects of a business, partic-ularly the links between operational performance and profitability, and the need to make informed and balanced decisions fromthe range of strategies available in order to generate future profits (see also Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2011). Ad-ditionally, as Avolio and his colleagues (2004) observe, chairpersons preferred self-efficacious leaders as they stood by their stra-tegic vision, communicating corporate values and behaviors aligned to the culture.
The social capital of executive candidates played a critical role and in multiple ways (Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2015a, b).Firstly, candidate social capital facilitated CEO access to potential collaborators who might act as additional sources of capitalto drive a firm's performance. Secondly, social capital acted as a mechanism to reassure key stakeholders affected by theselection process that the past achievements of the executive candidate were likely to be repeated in the future. Finally,the greater the visibility of these prior achievements to the corporate sector, the greater the number of other chairpersonsand referees who could assist chairs and the selection committees to assess whether that candidate's capital matched thechallenges confronting the firm (see also Mackey, Molloy and Morris, 2014; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Westpahl andZajac, 2013).
The contextual needs of the firm have been found to dominate judgments around the specific volumes and combinations ofcapitals required in executive or CEO candidates (Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2015b). To the corporate elite (chairpersons, boardmembers, executive recruiters) who select new CEOs, the volume and structure of a candidate's career capital needs to matchthe firm's industry context, the stage in the firm's organizational life-cycle and its competitive strategy (Porter, 1998). Avolioand Gardner (2005) also report that the context of leader development is critical for opportunities to learn and refine leadershipcapabilities and to develop specific and highly contextual capitals such as stewardship and strategy. Without access to these spe-cific contexts, these two particular capitals cannot be fully developed.
Duberley and Cohen (2010) in their study of the career capital of female scientists concluded that, even within occupationalfields, the notion of capital must be seen as differentiated, not only around its meaning and expression in a field, but also interms of its availability. Likewise, Eagly and Carli (2007) report that greater value is given to experience derived in line rolesover support roles in corporations by boards of directors, as well as greater weight being placed upon higher numbers of staffreporting to a functional position. Together these findings again emphasize the importance of availability of access to key contex-tual experiences and networks that build particular valuable structures of career capital. For example, to be a credible steward thepotential CEO must possess a depth and breadth of experience in an industry, field or specific environment that provides themwith the knowledge and skill to maximize the performance of an organization in its current context (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014).
With these statements about capital now in place, in the following sections we investigate the numerous forces that are atplay, from childhood through to adult roles in organizational contexts, that act to preclude women from opportunities for valuablecapital acquisition and as argued above, are required to enter a senior executive or CEO role. In addition, we propose that in thelonger term without these capitals women will find it difficult to win roles on boards, especially the premier role as the boardchair.
Forces inhibiting the accumulation of valuable capital
There has been extensive investigation of the causes of gender disparity in leadership roles and the individual forces that are atplay (Eagly and Carli, 2007; England, 2010; Heilman and Okimoto, 2007; Ibarra and Hansen, 2010). However, prior discussionshave rarely considered the expression of these forces in concert, across different contexts and over the entire career. Returningto the Bourdieusian conception of forces, we identify in general terms several forces that diminish the opportunities in a woman'shabitus to access and to accumulate the volumes and structures of capital considered to be valuable by the corporate field, there-fore repelling them from these roles (Swartz, 1997). It is proposed that these forces act reciprocally at three levels: individual,organizational, and societal.
Early life experiences
Early childhood and adolescence are the peak times for the development of gendered behavior which is more or less passivelyacquired from observation of societal norms (Lippa, 2005; Sherman and Zurbriggen, 2014). As Wood and Eagly (2002) report,each sex develops behavioral tendencies appropriate to observed gender roles. As evidence of this, early life contexts such asthe parental division of labor can be determinants of role occupancy in later life (Avolio, Rotundo and Walumbwa, 2009;Owen-Blakemore and Hill, 2008). Additionally, where this division accommodates a working career for a mother, children arelikely to grow up with more gender-egalitarian attitudes and beliefs (Riggio and Desrochers, 2006; Wetlesen, 2013).
Hoffman (1972) reports that some contexts in childhood offer boys the ability to take risks, to act independently and to besuccessful, and in turn these outcomes promote self-confidence in males around risk taking in later life. Also the different treat-ment of boys and girls around taking risks in childhood play promotes less self-confidence and self-esteem for women later inwork contexts (Pallier, 2003; Sahlstein and Allen, 2002; White, Cox and Cooper, 1992). Shyness is more socially acceptable forfemale children, reinforcing this behavior at the expense of self-confidence and assertive behaviors (Doey, Coplan andKingsbury, 2014). Also the games boys traditionally play, such as full contact team sports, are known to contribute to the devel-opment of resilience, leadership, strategic thinking, and an understanding of the importance of social capital (Ewing, Gano-Overway, Branta and Seefeldt, 2002; Fraser-Thomas, Cote and Deakin, 2005; Gould and Carson, 2008). In sum, societal-level ef-fects create gendered contexts for capital creation in children. In turn, experiences in these contexts generate gender differentiat-ed capital which can have profound effects upon opportunities for capital accumulation in later stages of the life cycle.
If we look at the example of the CEO capital of self-efficacy, links can be shown between childhood experiences and behaviorslater as adults. Guay, Marsh and Boivin (2003) report that gendered contexts and opportunities in childhood that develop self-confidence influence judgments by women in applying for a promotion at work. The relative lack of self-confidence in womenin seeking opportunities to promote themselves, and issues around lower levels of self-confidence, are well documented (Kayand Shipman, 2014; Sturm, Taylor, Atwater and Braddy, 2014). In contrast, men are more likely than women to overestimatetheir ability to fulfill roles with which they are unfamiliar (Steinmeyer and Spinath, 2009). As a result, due to a lack of self-confidence opportunities to develop valued career capitals around leadership, strategy and stewardship through applying for pro-motions and special assignments are foregone early in the work careers of many women (Lyness and Thompson, 2000; Paap,2008).
As numerous studies also reveal (Cole, 2001; Galli and Muller-Stewens, 2012), promotion provides greater exposure and in-creased responsibilities that are key grounds for developing resilience, testing personal integrity, and expanding social networks.Additionally, the higher the budget and staff numbers reporting in these contexts, the greater is the complexity of decision-making that is required, thereby further developing intelligence capital (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm and McKee, 2014; McCall,Lombardo and Morrison, 1988). In sum, the “pink and blue” decisions, underwritten by societal norms, that families and schoolsmake about the experiences that boys and girls receive, either in the playground or in the classroom, generate gender differenti-ated levels of valuable capital (Malpas, 2011). These seemingly inconsequential decisions can have lifelong consequences aroundthe ability or inability to access future opportunities for valuable capital development (Bourdieu, 1990).
Social expectations and gender congeniality
Categorizations of male versus female provide people with the strongest basis for classifying others (Blaine, 2007). Being pri-marily socially constructed, gender evokes mental associations which are also learned. These stereotypic expectations include be-liefs which shape roles and behaviors toward each gender group. For example, a persistent stereotype associates managementwith being male (Askehave and Korning-Zethsen, 2014; Kark, Waisal-Manor and Shamir, 2012).
Another stereotype is that “girls are not good” at science, technology, engineering and math subjects, influencing many youngwomen in high schools to move away from these subjects. Girls develop attitudes toward their suitability to undertake such sub-jects, and the careers related to these subjects, based upon inputs from parents and teachers, who are often simply reflectingbroader societal views (Butler, Clarke and Simon, 2014; Else-Quest, Mineo and Higgins, 2013). However, completing these sub-jects at high school provides entry to industries and roles that provide access to capital accumulation opportunities which inturn allow them to transition to a wider array of traditionally male occupations and male dominated senior-levels of the organi-zational hierarchy. For example, access to higher paying operational roles in manufacturing, mining and construction (Cheryan,2012; Else-Quest et al., 2013; Jagacinski, 2013). Avoiding science, technology, engineering, and math subjects at school also pre-cludes women from work roles and contexts that might allow them to develop capitals around leadership, stewardship and
strategy development, especially in operational and line role functions which are traditional pathways to executive and CEO roles(Buday, Stake and Peterson, 2012; Shapiro and Williams, 2012).
Eagly and Carli (2007) reflect that virtually all social interactions around leadership are influenced by gendered expectationsand associations. Societal norms dictate that males are expected to act agentically with aggression and competitiveness. Femalesare expected to act communally with interpersonal sensitivity (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Phelan, Moss-Racusin andRudman, 2008). Therefore conforming to a norm, such as being interpersonally sensitive, may act as a deterrent for femalesfrom assertively claiming roles around leadership or in actively seeking promotion (Phelan et al., 2008; Rudman, 1998). Addition-ally, awareness of a strong stereotype can interfere with a person's self-efficacy, reducing their willingness to perform tasks thatmight add to their capital, but which are seen to be contrary to the societal expectations (Jackman, 1994; Schmader and Johns,2005). As Desai and her colleagues (2014: 330) propose, societal norms influence organizational behaviors including the actionsof married men who have wives who stay at home, “to disfavor women in the workplace” making them “more likely than theaverage of all married men to make decisions that prevent the advancement of qualified women”.
Cultural stereotypes give men clear advantages in being recruited to more senior leadership positions. Men are categorized asmale, activating masculine associations that are similar to beliefs about leadership (Eagly and Karau, 1991; Schein, 2001). Thisprocess increases the odds that a male will be regarded as a leader. Once viewed as a leader, Eagly and Carli (2007) argue thatstereotypes about leadership are further ascribed to them, influencing their chances of success and the accumulation of valuableleadership capital. The acquisition of valuable capital for women can be similarly limited where societal-level effects cause orga-nizations to assign women to contexts that are considered to be more congenial. These contexts often involve support roles thatlimit access to opportunities to build executive and CEO capitals (Hoobler, Lemmon and Wayne, 2014; Ohlott, Ruderman andMcCauley, 1994). Brescoll and associates (2013) identify the prime example of women being assigned to support roles to providemore flexibility after a return to work from maternity leave. Whether organizations deliberately withhold opportunities for capitaldevelopment or role conflicts prevent women from accepting them, this lack of access to the accumulation of experiences thatgenerate contextually relevant capital such as occupying line, operational, and international roles can seriously slow the careerprogress of women (Casinowsky, 2013; de Pater and Van Vianen, 2006; Ohlott et al., 1994).
Access to and success in line role assignments are noted as being essential prerequisites for the advancement to senior man-agement positions (Galli and Muller-Stewens, 2012; Smith, Smith and Verner, 2013). Managing the profitability of an organizationis one of the key functions of executives and CEOs (Carey and Ogden, 2000). Line role positions provide experience in revenuegeneration and cost control in producing goods or services. Line roles are critical contexts for the development of the valuablecapitals, while providing increased visibility that builds social capital (Bowles, 2012; Cahusac and Kanji, 2014).
The double bind
As Cohen (2000) noted, effective leadership involves the ability to influence a group of people toward a common goal. How-ever, a “double bind” limits women's abilities to engage in a full range of influencing behaviors (Carli, 2001; Haynes, 2012;Heilman, 2012). Put simply, societal effects cause women to be evaluated negatively if they are perceived as too “feminine” intheir leadership style, as well as if they are perceived to be too “masculine.” Research consistently demonstrates that womenare evaluated negatively by followers when they engage in assertive behavior, whereas men are not (Bowles, Babcock and Lai,2007; Phelan et al., 2008).
The negative effect of women acting agentically is heightened in more senior leadership roles (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelanand Nauts, 2012). Ironically, men are able to influence through displays of decisiveness and distance, as much as they can throughexpressions of warmth and selflessness (Douglas, 2012; Heilman and Chen, 2005). Men can communicate in a warm or a dom-ineering manner with little consequence to their ability to influence followers positively, whereas again women cannot. Thesenegative evaluations reduce further the opportunities for leadership roles that, in turn, provide the accumulation of capitals valuedfor more senior roles (Carli, 1999; Holgersson, 2002).
Additionally, women are evaluated negatively when they self-promote, whereas men are perceived as more competent whenthey engage in these behaviors (Carli, 2004; Moss-Racusin and Rudman, 2010). These effects are heightened for women in gendernon-congenial occupations such as mining or construction and especially where women are in a minority in the group (Heilman,2001; Yoder, 2002). To the extent that the double bind creates a narrow range of acceptable leadership behaviors that arerewarded with access to more senior roles, women's ability to access further developmental opportunities is impaired and there-fore the full range of leadership capitals required to become an executive or CEO are likewise impaired.
The glass cliff
The ‘glass cliff’ phenomenon (Ryan and Haslam, 2005) holds that women gain promotion into more senior roles due to societalperceptions about the leadership attributes that they bring to the role. Fitzsimmons and his colleagues (2014) also found thatthese leadership positions are often more risky and usually involve crisis leadership or “healing” roles in traumatized divisionsor organizations. There are a number of explanations for this action by organizations. Women are perceived to be better equippedto handle these situations due to societal views that they can offer a more nurturing style (Ryan and Haslam, 2007; Ryan, Haslamand Postems, 2007). Also organizations which are under-performing may view women as being more effective agents of culturalchange through more inclusive leadership styles which are more likely to engage employees (Bruckmuller, Ryan, Rink andHaslam, 2014; Furst and Reeves, 2008). Whatever the organizational drivers, these positions are more prone to failure and are
often roles which males, through their networks, are advised to avoid (Cook and Glass, 2014; Fitzsimmons et al., 2014). Addition-ally, as others report (Ellemers, Rink, Derks and Ryan, 2012; Mulcahy and Linehan, 2014) these positions often have less powerand more restraints around driving change.
There are different assessments of how such roles might build CEO capital. Without the full range of leadership options thatwould be available in a high performing organization, these leadership roles might be seen as more valuable in developing anincumbent's integrity, self-efficacy, and strategic thinking. Alternatively, since roles associated with change management andturn-around are more prone to failure, they might undermine the development of capitals around positive self-esteem andself-efficacy, and create reputational damage that severely limits opportunities for future CEO roles.
Direct and indirect discrimination
There is ample evidence that direct discrimination still exists (Holland and Cortina, 2013; Judge and Livingston, 2008). In par-ticular, male dominated industries such as construction, engineering, and mining are identified as environments where manyforms of direct discrimination continue to exist (Paap, 2008). Also direct discrimination such as sexual harassment occurs acrossall levels of management (O'Leary-Kelly, Bowes-Sperry, Bates and Lean, 2009). For instance, Gutek (2001) argues that sexual ha-rassment is as prevalent against senior women as it is against women entering the workforce. Outcomes from direct discrimina-tion include risking negative consequences in raising the issue, such as ostracism, disengagement, lower work satisfaction,decreased effectiveness, and lower health and well-being. All of these outcomes significantly impact upon social capital, self-efficacy, and chances for progression (Cunningham, Bergman and Miner, 2014; London, Downey, Romero-Canyas, Rattan andTyson, 2012).
Greater levels of legislative intervention and policing of direct forms of sex based discrimination has made discrimination moresubtle, indirect, and ambiguous (Basford, Offermann and Behrend, 2014; Dipboye and Colella, 2005). There is also evidence thatyoung women assume that discrimination is a problem of previous generations, and they do not recognize it for what it is (Jetten,Iyer, Branscombe and Zhang, 2013; Kelan, 2014). A further consequence is the difficulty in proving that a woman has been sub-jected to discrimination (Kelan, 2014; Leskinen and Cortina, 2014). Compounding the issue is that a woman who continues tovoice her concerns is more likely to experience greater levels of harassment and more negative outcomes, often leading her toopt out of the workforce (Holland and Cortina, 2013; Stockdale, 1998). Leaving the workforce for any period of time disrupts crit-ical social networks and hinders the accumulation of social capital. Additionally, an absence from work leads to the erosion ofhuman capital due to a lack of praxis (Kolb, Rubin and McIntyre, 1974; Lovejoy and Stone, 2012).
As Fitzsimmons and Callan (2015a) recently found, there is a tendency acquired through society for males in general to act“chivalrously”. This often takes the form of “benevolent sexism” or “protective paternalism” (King et al., 2012; Sarlet, Dumont,Dellacolletteand Dardenne, 2012). In essence, traditional stereotyped beliefs that women need to be protected lead men to definesome organizational contexts and job assignments as “too risky” or “unsafe” for women (Hoobler et al., 2014; King et al., 2012).However, many of these assignments are particularly valuable for the development of leadership and strategy capital. Additionally,successful completion of riskier assignments more thoroughly demonstrates the accumulation of valuable human capital. Addi-tionally it usually brings with it heightened visibility and consequently disproportionately higher levels of social capital, and fur-ther opportunities for progression (Hoobler et al., 2014; King et al., 2012).
Selection and promotion bias
As Hultin (2003) and Maume (2004) report, women have to wait longer for promotions at all stages of their careers, whilethere is evidence that the gap in this waiting time between men and women increases at more senior levels (Tharenou, 1999).Evidence of gender bias in promotion is supported by a meta-analysis of experimental studies involving hiring intentions (seeKoch, D'Mello and Sackett, 2015; Ryan and Haslam, 2007). Performance versus promotion scores reveal that, although femalesgenerally score slightly higher than males on job performance, men still score higher on measures of potential for promotion(Roth, Purvis and Bobko, 2012). Often the role being assessed is in a gender stereotypical male industry and decision panelsare comprised entirely of senior males (Hoyt, 2012; Lyness and Heilman, 2006). Holgersson (2002, 2013) noted that wherethis occurs, males will often impose unconscious (and sometimes conscious) informal criteria aligned to the social characteristicsof those on the panel. One result is the devaluing of individuals with social capital that is seen to be deficient while at the sametime, compounding the social capital of individuals who are successful in being appointed to the role (also see Heilman, 2012).
A similar pattern of findings emerges in studies of recruitment and selection panels in the screening of job applicants (Heilmanand Eagly, 2008; Koch, Konigorski and Sieverding, 2014). Women's career progression is inhibited when organizations exclusivelyadopt promotion by application, with evidence that eligible women self-select out of promotion due to a lack of confidence(Goodman, Fields and Blum, 2003; Martell, Emrich and Robison-Cox, 2012). The combined effect of these practices is to acceleratecapital accumulation in men relative to women, as men progress to work in more senior contexts that offer heightened opportu-nities for capital development (Beeson and Valerio, 2012; Bruchmuller et al., 2014).
Work on capital enhancing projects, clients, and assignments are critical earlier in a career. Consequently, assessment and pro-motion practices are especially critical at more junior levels in ensuring capital development remains equal between men andwomen (Fitzsimmons, 2011). As Bourdieu (1990) argued, increased capital opens opportunities for access to further capital,while also compounding existing capital. Hence, selection and promotion biases can have early and career spanning consequencesfor valuable capital acquisition.
The examination of gender differences in leadership styles is extensive (Barnett, 2007; Carli and Eagly, 2007). While there aresome consistent differences, on the whole men and women do not differ in their leadership style. However, some interesting dif-ferences do emerge around specific styles. For instance, on measures of transformational and contingent reward transactionalleadership, women consistently outscore men (Bass et al., 1996; Eagly et al., 2003; Parry, 2000). However, as Eagly and hercolleagues (2003) note, while women score highest on individualized consideration, the dimension is not valued as highly inCEO promotion contexts. The score of most interest is inspirational motivation, where men and women score the closest(Vinkenburg, van Engen, Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2011). Of the five transformational leadership behaviors, women consis-tently score lowest on inspirational motivation (Eagly et al., 2003; Vinkenburg et al., 2011). It can be argued that this difference inhow organizations value different features of transformational leadership acts to limit the advantage that might otherwise accrueto women in assessments of their leadership ability, and particularly their leadership potential.
In terms of personality dispositions, Judge and his colleagues (2002) found that extraversion was the most consistent correlateof leadership emergence and effectiveness. Other important traits were conscientiousness and openness to experience. WhenCosta, Terracciano and McCrae (2001) compared these traits by gender, the greatest differences where men exceeded women oc-curred in the excitement seeking component of extraversion and the ideas component of openness to experience. There is a bodyof research showing that men are more likely to seek out potential new experiences that in organizational contexts can includepromotion, opportunities for self-promotion, and more senior leadership roles, even where they lack the appropriate skills(Doldor, Anderson and Vinnicombe, 2013; Moss-Racusin and Rudman, 2010). One explanation is that numerous factors in com-bination (e.g. the higher self-efficacy of males, conceptions of leadership as a male role, a willingness to take risks), irrespective oftheir current levels of skills, encourage males to seek out more senior roles (Eagly and Carli, 2007; Ehrlinger and Dunning, 2003;Else-Quest et al., 2013). In particular, the early acquisition of self-efficacy capital has been found to be critical as a driver in facil-itating access to opportunities to acquire all other forms of valuable capital (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014).
Division of domestic labor
As Groysberg and Abrahams (2014) remind us, there is a continued imbalance in the sharing of domestic responsibilities be-tween men and women. Several factors are at work that limit women's access to the opportunities and the contexts to build valu-able career capital. Women still undertake nearly twice as much housework as men and spend more than twice the amount oftime providing childcare (Bianchi, Robinson and Milkie, 2006; Eagly and Carli, 2007). Parenting pressures are most intenseamong women having the most career potential. They are most likely to be exposed to norms requiring extra working hours,as well as being the most self-critical of their own parenting (Bianchi et al., 2006; Groysberg and Abrahams, 2014). Due to theinequitable sharing of childcare and household responsibilities, women with children suffer the most workplace disadvantageand have greater difficulty advancing to higher positions (Hoobler, et al., 2014; Pinnington and Sandberg, 2013). Additionally,women are far more likely to suffer physical and emotional exhaustion and burnout (Reichl, Leiter and Spinath, 2014). However,as studies of dual career families reveal, the “four pillars” of a supportive and available spouse, available extended family, paidchildcare options, and flexible workplaces can mitigate the effects of work-family conflict for women (Fitzsimmons and Callan,2015a; Parsons, 2014).
Organizational-level effects shape normative beliefs about the need to work full time and the need to work long hours(Pinnington and Sandberg, 2013; Williams, 2000). Stone and Lovejoy (2004) found, in a study of high-level managerial and pro-fessional women, that 86% of respondents cited long and inflexible work hours as the most significant factors in their decision toquit their organizations. Hewlett and Luce (2005) identified the needs of the family as the primary reason for women to take timeoff work, while for men it was to change careers. It is also the primary cause of women opting out of the workforce (Cahusac andKanji, 2014). These findings are consistent across most countries. Men rarely, if ever, have to make a choice between their careerand family, whereas women with children nearly always report that family responsibilities require a choice between having a ca-reer and having a family (Kokok, 2014; van Veldhoven and Beijer, 2012).
The dual needs of managing traditional responsibilities and a career direct many women away from roles and industries thatare perceived as having the potential to create unacceptable role conflict. Line roles, operational roles, and international assign-ments in particular create dramatically increased role conflicts in women without the support of the “four pillars” (Evans andDiekman, 2009; Hosoi and Canetto, 2009).
The existing division of household labor, and the associated issues around household duties and child care, cause many womento be absent or opt out of organizations. This opting out is a substantial cause of capital erosion. This rate of capital erosion is notlinear but rather it accelerates the longer a woman is out of the paid workforce (Evers and Sieverding, 2014; Hewlett and Luce,2005). Even women who come back to work immediately after maternity leave can suffer capital erosion. Organizations often re-spond to requests by women for more flexibility by reducing their hours or reducing their responsibilities. While these actionsmay allow a woman to give greater focus to her family, they come at the expense of eroding their social and human capital.Women are often sidelined to lower-status support roles for which they are underpaid relative to their previous seniority.While providing new mothers with flexibility, support roles, and part-time work fails to fully leverage existing capital. They pro-vide fewer development opportunities and disrupt established social networks that are needed to promote capitals through vis-ibility (Cahusac and Kanji, 2014; Christensen and Stains, 1990).
The long term effects of these factors on capital accumulation or capital erosion are neither linear nor simple. As women with-draw from the workforce either fully or partially, they miss critical roles and contexts for further capital accumulation, while alsosuffering erosion of some existing capitals. Individuals who stay in full time employment can move further ahead of them in ac-quiring the skills, knowledge, and social capital to seek higher level appointments (Anderson, Binder and Krause, 2003; Jacobsenand Levine, 1995).
Role conflict
Role pressures and perceptions about the ability of women to meet them are greater at higher job levels, starting at middle-management layers and continuing into senior managerial and executive roles (Rapoport, Bailyn, Fletcher and Pruitt, 2002). AsLips and Lawson (2009) note, even where a woman fits the criteria to do a more senior role, she will still suffer from the percep-tions that she has competing roles that will create conflicts between work and home. In the report by Williams and Cohen-Cooper(2004), this role conflict is identified to be at its most intense when women progress from middle to executive management po-sitions, since this period usually coincides with the decision to have children.
While social capital can be more essential to career advancement than the effective performance of traditional managerialtasks (Seibert, Kraimer and Liden, 2001; Tharenou, 1999), role conflict can be a major barrier to the development of valuablesocial capital. Networking typically occurs after work, requiring longer working hours and possibly extended travel(Fitzsimmons et al. 2014). While not labelled as productive time (Seibert et al., 2001), networking is a critical activity forthose in senior manager roles and above. As Eagly and Carli (2007) observe, those who cannot put in extra hours have farfewer opportunities to build social capital. Therefore, they are not in a position to exchange it for opportunities to acquire fur-ther valuable capitals.
Even where women have few role conflicts, they can be hampered in the acquisition of social capital through exclusion frominformal male networks (Davies-Netzley, 1998). Also where they are included, their full participation is often inhibited by theneed to participate or to be knowledgeable about stereotypically masculine interests such as sports (Sjostrand and Tyrstrup,2001) or in having to engage in masculine discourse during these social activities (Alvesson and Billing, 1992). Bowles (2012:191) notes that “the social structure of the business world reflects sex segregation of occupations in which women congregatein the lower levels of the hierarchy”. Eagly and Carli (2007:145) report that while women do not necessarily have fewer relation-ships than men, their networks are largely sex segregated with women preferring to be with women, and men with men. Giventhat men occupy the higher levels of the hierarchy, men are advantaged in the information they access through their social inter-actions and in the accumulation of valuable social capital in being visible to those who make the key promotion and appointmentdecisions (Clerc and Kels, 2013; Doldor et al., 2013). In summary, there are very clear links between higher levels of social capital,career progression, and increased opportunities for valuable capital acquisition (Ding, Murray and Stuart, 2013; Fitzsimmons et al.,2014).
Access to mentoring
Several studies reveal that mentoring is a critical factor for women in progressing to a CEO role (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz andLima, 2004; Rosser, 2005). According to Kram (1985), mentoring consists of two distinct functions: career development functionsand psychosocial functions. Career development includes sponsorship, coaching, protection, exposure, visibility, and the provisionof challenging career assignments, so providing both social capital and opportunities to refine and increase other valuable capitals(Ehrich, 2008). The psychosocial functions include encouragement, friendship, advice, and feedback, as well as helping individualsto develop a sense of competence, confidence, and effectiveness. In this capacity mentors play a key role in enhancing self-efficacy(see also Levesque, O'Neill, Nelson and Dumas, 2005).
There is strong support for the assertion that mentoring is more important for the progression of women than for men(Dworkin, Maurer and Schipani, 2012; Ehrich, 2008; Tharenou, 2005). There is a body of evidence supporting the positive effectthat mentoring has upon protégée outcomes including promotion decisions, increased pay, and career mobility (O'Brien, Biga,Kessler and Allen, 2008). Toward explaining the greater benefits for females, Ramaswami and his colleagues (2010) noted thatthe benefits of having mentors are further amplified for female managers in male gender congenial industries and contexts.
However, male mentors cannot take the place of female role models in providing credible exemplars of leadership behaviors(Latu, Mast, Lammers and Bonbari, 2013). Female role models play a critical role in female progression in two ways: they evi-dence the possibility of obtaining senior roles, boosting self-efficacy (Lockwood, 2006) and they provide clues about navigatingthe nuances of leading as a woman, so enhancing leadership capital (Latu et al., 2013). Unfortunately, in many industries thereare few, if any, women in CEO positions that can act as visible role models. For example, in Australia there are only 12 womenCEOs in the top 200 listed companies or 6% (ASX, 2015) and in the United States there are 22 women in the S&P 500 or 4.4%(Catalyst, 2015).
Ironically, in industries that are highly male dominated, senior men can be reticent to mentor younger women. Reasons in-clude the potential for allegations around sexual discrimination or innuendo regarding their motives (Ragins and McFarlin,1990). This reality limits the development, testing, and refinement of valuable capitals in women, and particularly the critical so-cial capital that mentors and career sponsors can provide (Dworkin et al., 2012; Ehrich, 2008).
There is a large literature about the gendering and devaluation of flexible roles in organizations. Despite the nature of the fam-ily unit changing dramatically over the last two decades, the stereotype persists of the male breadwinner (Gatrell, Burnett, Cooperand Sparrow, 2014; Rudman and Mescher, 2013). The majority of employees using flexible work arrangements are women, evenin the case of dual career couples (Brescoll et al., 2013; Rafnsdottir and Heijstra, 2013). Being the primary carer of children islinked to a larger number of sick days and leaves of absence, both of which are associated with slower career progression(Corrigal and Konrad, 2006; Mastekaasa, 2000).
Pas and her colleagues (2014) argue that flexible work practices are failing as they are primarily seen as a motherhood issueby organizations. Evidence for the failure of more flexible roles emerges in data around poorer pay, more experiences of subtlediscrimination, and the lack of opportunities for career progression by women in these often part-time roles (Conway andSturges, 2013; Durbin and Tomlinson, 2014).
In particular, workplace culture influences decision-making by senior managers, as well as peer responses to implementingmore flexible workplace agreements. Workplace culture is a key factor in explaining the gaps between organizational policiesaround flexibility and their implementation (McDonald, Brown and Bradley, 2005; Paustian-Underdahl and Halbesleben, 2014).Many cultural barriers at work have been identified as influencing the implementation of more flexible work practices.Thompson, Beauvais and Lyness (1999) noted that the greater the expectation that employees need to be seen at work over ex-tended periods of time the more likely it is that managers will decline flexibility. Similarly, Perlow (1995) identified that in work-places where work is prioritized above other non-work related responsibilities, flexibility is less likely to be supported. These twoorganizational-level affects are heightened if the manager making the decision is male (Brescoll et al., 2013). Likewise, the genderand status of the employee requesting more flexible work arrangements will have an impact upon the likelihood of flexibilitybeing granted, with males being disadvantaged in this regard (Behson, 2002). The take up of flexibility by employees will be ham-pered in organizations where the implementation of flexible practices results in team mates needing to take on additional bur-dens to accommodate the flexibility needs of a colleague (Kossek, Barber and Winters, 1999; Teasdale, 2013). Finally, thedegree to which negative career consequences are known to potential users of flexible arrangements will also reduce uptake offlexible work options (Conway and Sturges, 2013; Durbin and Tomlinson, 2014).
There is an emerging body of evidence that those who access flexible working arrangements suffer a penalty around their cap-ital accumulation disproportionate to the time they actually work under the arrangement. They are often shifted to less opportunecapital accumulation projects or roles such as support functions (Hoobler et al., 2014). Those in flexible positions are also morefrequently overlooked for promotion and excluded from critical meetings as well as given fewer opportunities for training, atten-dance at key conferences, and development opportunities (Almer, Cohen and Single, 2004; Cahusac and Kanji, 2014, Crowley andKolenikov, 2014).
At the core of these outcomes is the organizational belief that working long hours signals a desire to progress toward an ex-ecutive role (Coronel, Moreno and Carrasco, 2010; Lovejoy and Stone, 2012). This organizational belief promotes conflict in theprimary carer between the need to commit to longer working hours and the desire to spend time with their family (Cahusacand Kanji, 2014; Tischler, 2004). However, as Dreher (2003) found, companies which provide greater autonomy and supportaround when hours are worked (as opposed to other forms of flexibility) have the highest percentages of women in executiveroles. Nonetheless, as more recent reviews continue to highlight (Crowley and Kolenikov, 2014), the majority of organizations re-main reluctant to provide more flexible work arrangements for men and women.
The gender pay gap
The wage gap between men and women is linked back to the industrial revolution (Barrett, 1988). Today, women in Australiareceive on average 24.7% less in total pay (WGEA, 2015). However, approximately half of this gap relates to differentials in edu-cation, time out of the workforce, hours worked per week, industry and hierarchical level occupied (Chang, Connell, Burgess andTravaglione, 2014). The wage gap between men and women is largest in senior roles, while male-dominated occupations and in-dustries have higher pay than female-dominated occupations and industries (Fox, 2013; Pfeifer, 2013). The variables which pre-dict the greatest wage differences are marital status and parenthood. Men who are married or have children receive significantlyhigher pay and greater chances of promotion than equivalent women (Hodges and Budig, 2010). Again, these findings support thepersistence of the stereotype of the male breadwinner (Gatrell et al., 2014).
There are many explanations for the continuation of the pay gap in today's workplaces. One view is that women compare paylevels to other women rather than to industry averages or to equivalent men (Hogue, DuBois and Fox-Cardamone, 2010). Othersoffer explanations around a self-imposed silence and unwillingness by women to argue for greater pay equity (Amanatullah andMorris, 2010; Judge, Livingstone and Hurst, 2012), negative reactions by their superiors toward women who press for pay rises(Bowles and Babcock, 2013; Kulik and Olekalns, 2012), and cultural norms supported by government policies around maternityleave, unionism, and work–life balance (Christofides, Polycarpou and Vrachimis, 2013). To others (Blau and Kahn, 2007; Changet al., 2014) the persistence of the gender pay gap is the manifest outcome of multiple factors that operate at individual, organi-zational, and societal-levels in preventing the progression of women into executive and CEO roles.
Returning to the theme around capital accumulation and context, salaries are often a measure of relative perceived worth inour workplaces (Henretta and Campbell, 1978). Put another way, salaries are an equivalent financial capital representation of thevalue to the firm of the human and social capital embodied in the employee (Bourdieu, 1990). In summary, the continuation of
the pay gap reflects the continuation of differences in judgments by organizations about the value of the capital accumulated bywomen relative to men.
Finally, self-perceptions of being paid less for equivalent work could impact negatively upon a sense of self-worth and self-efficacy. It also sends signals to the corporate elites who define the essential capitals for promotion to the executive ranksabout the relative worth of investing in those senior managers who have been more explicit in demanding higher salaries (DiTella, Haisken-De New and MacCulloch, 2010; Oshio and Urakawa, 2014). Typically, these individuals are middle to senior-levelmale managers who, throughout their careers, have negotiated and bargained with their male superiors about the nature andsize of their remuneration packages (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014).
Discussion
A primary objective of this paper was to investigate broadly the gendered forces at play in determining the accumulation orerosion of valuable capital from childhood to retirement. It is proposed that these gendered forces limit opportunities for capitalsto be acquired, tested, and refined across specific corporate contexts which are viewed by boards to be essential for successfulprogression to more senior appointments.
In this final section, we offer a preliminary framework which represents a summary of these forces across the lifetime andbroadly described as societal, organizational, and individual influences (see Fig. 1). The central argument is that the accumulationof valuable capital is context dependent. As such, the three levels of effect can operate independently or in combination to pre-clude women from accessing contexts which allow the accumulation of valuable configurations of capital. For example, societaleffects early in life can impact the subject choices of young women in high school and university, thereby excluding themfrom many operational roles early in their career. As another example, the provision by organizations of part-time and casual po-sitions or transfer to support roles for female senior managers with young children seeking more flexible work roles, actuallyserve to erode their valuable capital, while part-time work limits access to jobs and assignments that their peers in full-timework can take up.
A central part of this framework is that valuable capital accumulation unlocks the next opportunity for capital accumulation(Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2015b). Each new job assignment or promotion, dependent upon its context, tests existing structuresand volumes of valuable capital while providing an environment to accumulate new capital. Higher-level roles and special assign-ments, particularly in line, operational, or international/intranational contexts, provide the greatest opportunities to develop, test,and refine senior executives and CEO capitals around leadership, strategy, self-efficacy, integrity, intelligence, and stewardship.
Fig. 1. Gendered forces acting to reduce capital accumulation.
Furthermore, these roles bring heightened visibility and a network of social contacts. This social capital enables additional oppor-tunities to acquire and refine capital, eventually culminating in certain individuals having the volume and structure of capital val-ued most by boards as they select those few individuals who will transition successfully to executive and CEO roles.
Capital accumulation, leadership research and theory
Our position about the accumulation of a narrow range of valuable capitals over the life cycle aligns with the larger literatureon the attributes of effective leadership. The capitals we have considered share much in common with the many characteristicsalready defined and explored in numerous frameworks of transformational, distributed, ethical, and collaborative leadership(Guerrero, Lapalme and Seguin, 2015; Nichols and Erakovich, 2013). In addition, there is a strong agreement about the criticalimportance of some capitals over others, that their development is highly context dependent, that the confirmation of manykey capitals is at the core of the CEO selection process, and finally that those dominant in the field rarely deviate from thiscore set of capitals in making CEO and executive appointments.
For example, Avolio and Gardner (2005) describe qualities around relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, bal-anced processing, and self-awareness. Two of these capabilities, the intellectual ability to balance processing in decision makingand to be relationally transparent at all times, are cited by boards as critical CEO competencies in their hiring decisions (Moss,2008). Other writers such as Algera and Lips-Wiersma (2012) acknowledge that authentic and more transformational leadersshow resilience, the courage to stand by their values, and they lead by example when change is required. As reported in ourlist of executive and CEO capitals above, leaders gain and sustain credibility in followers and superiors alike by demonstratingthat they possess the industry knowledge and expertise to consistently deliver tangible results, while empowering others inthe process of delivering them (Avolio et al., 2004). In other words, they must possess a sufficient volume and structure ofhuman and social capital in order to be perceived as a credible business steward, and particularly one whose values are alignedto the firm's strategy even in the face of resistance.
A key characteristic in contemporary leadership theory is the ability of the leader to envision a positive future and to inspirefollowers to achieve strategy through a sense of shared purpose (Bass et al., 1996; Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron and Myrowitz,2009). Gardner and his colleagues (2011) describe leaders as being guided by an internal moral compass just as much as bytheir intellect, highlighting the importance of integrity and intelligence as valuable capitals which act in concert with a deep un-derstanding of their organizational context to bring followers with them. Further, in their excellent summary Avolio and hiscolleagues (2004:807) identify that the valuable capitals around self-efficacy, integrity and social capital work in concert sothat leaders “act in accordance with deep personal values and convictions, to build credibility and win the respect and trust offollowers by encouraging diverse viewpoints and building networks of collaborative relationships with followers…”. In thisview, integrity and social capital in a senior executive encompass an understanding of industry values, as much as a deep under-standing of organizational culture and strategy.
Levels of restraining forces inside and outside the corporate field
Eagly (2005) reminds us that individual, organizational, and societal-level effects are at play in preventing women from devel-oping the capitals valued in our contemporary leaders. Returning to Bourdieu's (1990) framework, we propose (see Fig. 1) thatforces act at each of these three levels to repel women from the critical contexts in which leaders derive legitimacy, while reduc-ing their capacity to develop valuable capitals relative to equivalent males. Further, we propose that these forces that limit capitalaccumulation do not act in isolation. Many act reciprocally to reduce access to opportunities for capital accumulation. In manycases they form a web of contradictory forces, of which the ‘double bind’ is one example (Heilman, 2012). Societal-level effectssuch as gender congeniality not only establish a narrow range of acceptable leadership behaviors for women, but also act to in-fluence organizations to appoint or move women into support roles rather than line roles, while also at the same time influencingwomen not to seek these critical developmental roles. Additionally, societal and organizational pressures silence women aroundseeking more equity in promotion and pay (Evans and Diekman, 2009; Hoobler et al., 2014). Given that forces are at play at mul-tiple levels both inside and outside the organization, organizations will fail to promote more women to its executive ranks if theyattempt only to address one or two of these forces in isolation.
In addition, as shown in Fig. 1, in selecting where best to concentrate the gender equality efforts of an organization, thegreatest number of forces are in play when women are in middle management. This period coincides with the peak times forwomen in having children and supporting their families. Also this time is well documented as when the greatest number ofwomen exit the workforce (Hewlett and Luce, 2005), making the resolution of flexibility and domestic labor issues of paramountimportance in reducing the capital limiting effects of these forces.
Finally, we argue that since capital accumulation commences at birth, access to optimal career paths leading to executive andCEO roles may be severely inhibited from the outset. There are societal forces operating from childhood that are largely beyondthe control of most organizations. In our recent work (Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2015a), we recommended that government has akey role to play in educating its citizens about the cultural norms that directly and indirectly hold women back from career pro-gression. For example, governments have a role to play in encouraging parents, schools and organizations to collaborate on pro-moting STEM subjects to young women. We also noted the critical role local government and business play in facilitating timelyand affordable childcare options.
Interventions by our corporations must also be encouraged. We know that even small differences in access to contexts to ac-quire capital early in a career can compound into large late career differences (see Thompson, 2007). A key opportunity for cor-porations wishing to move toward greater gender equality is to ensure that the organizational-level effects shown in Fig. 1 such asequitable pay and progression policies, as well as structured mentoring, sponsorship and role modeling, are developed and imple-mented to ensure that the pipeline of female graduates moving through to senior roles in the business is supported.
With the average age of CEOs being 54 years of age (Rankin, 2014), and with new graduates entering the workforce in theirearly twenties, the time in the “arena” that Bourdieu (1990) refers to plays out across a roughly thirty year period, not a wholelifetime. Hence, for example, taking out even a few years from the workforce, given this thirty year period, reduces the capitalacquisition time frame by 10%. This fact heightens the importance of addressing individual, societal, and organizational level ef-fects that contribute toward loss of capital in the years coinciding with motherhood so that long term capital erosion can be mit-igated. In our recent work (Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2015a), we recommended individual strategies around career and familyplanning, and the development of self-confidence and self-promotion in order to limit the need for time away from the workforce.We particularly suggest that organizational policies surrounding flexibility need to incorporate outcomes based measures of per-formance and greater flexibility in when and where hours are worked. Additionally, organizations need to ensure that flexibleworkers have the same access to networking, training, and development opportunities as traditional workers, in order to buildrather than erode their human and social capital.
If we are to address the lack of women in executive, CEO and board roles, we must begin to think and act uniformly and ho-listically. While there is no doubt that organizations can do much to address gender inequality, many of its root causes lay outsidetheir scope of operations. They reside in the societies which generate our formative habitus. Without a dramatic shift in societalthinking around the formation of gender, and the consequent differences gender can produce in opportunities for capital acqui-sition, major changes in the number of women accessing the elite roles of senior executive will not occur in our lifetime oreven that of our children. Substantive change will only be brought about by governments, organizations and communities actingtogether. Their task is to understand, acknowledge, and to change the complex and interconnected forces that prevent womenfrom acquiring the capitals required to run our largest corporations, as well as to challenge the existing perception of valuedcapitals.
References
Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. TheLeadership Quarterly, 23, 118–131.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégées: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,36(1), 120–143.
Almer, E. D., Cohen, J. R., & Single, L. E. (2004). Is it the kids or the schedule?: The incremental effect of families and flexible scheduling on perceived career success.Journal of Business Ethics, 54(1), 51–65.
Alvesson, M., & Billing, Y. (1992). Gender and organization: Towards a differentiated understanding. Organization Studies, 13(1), 73–104.Amanatullah, E., & Morris, M. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated
when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256–267.Anderson, D. J., Binder, M., & Krause, K. (2003). Themotherhood wage penalty revisited: Experience heterogeneity, work effort andwork-schedule flexibility. Industrial
& Labor Relations Review, 56(3), 273–294.Askehave, I., & Korning-Zethsen, K. (2014). Gendered constructions of leadership in Danish job advertisements. Gender, Work and Organization (in press).ASX (2015). Australian Securities Exchange – Company information. Retrieved from http://www.asx.com.au/prices/company-information.htmAvolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower
attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823.Avolio, B. J., Rotundo, M., & Walumba, F. O. (2009). Early life experiences as determinants of leadership role occupancy: The importance of parental influence and rule
breaking behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 329–342.Barnett, R. C. (2007).Women, leadership and the natural order. In B. Kellerman, & D. Rhode (Eds.),Women and leadership: The state of play and strategies for change. San
Francisco C.A.: John Wiley & Sons.Barrett, M. (1988). Women's oppression today: The Marxist/feminist encounter. New York: Verso.Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Do you seewhat I see? Perceptions of microaggressions in theworkplace. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 38(3),
340–349.Basin, Y. (2015). On the issue of stability of wall street CEOs, while hoping for cultural changes in the financial sector. Society and Business Review, 10(1), 91–98.Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(1),
5–34.Beeson, J., & Valerio, A. M. (2012). The executive leadership imperative: A new perspective on how companies and executives can accelerate the development of
women leaders. Business Horizons, 55, 417–425.Begley, P. T. (2004). Understanding valuation processes: Exploring the linkage between motivation and action. International Studies in Educational Administration,
32(2), 4–17.Behson, S. J. (2002). Coping with family-to-work conflict: The role of informal work accommodations to family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(4),
324–341.Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Blaine, B. E. (2007). Understanding the psychology of diversity. London: Sage publications.Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). The gender pay gap: Have women gone as far as they can? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(2), 7–23.Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J., & Passeron, J. (1991). The craft of sociology: epistemological preliminaries. New York: Walter de Gruter.Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Bowles, H. R. (2012). Claiming authority: How women explain their ascent to top business leadership positions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 189–212.Bowles, H. R., & Babcock, L. (2013). How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 37(1), 80–96.Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (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.
Brescoll, V. L., Glass, J., & Sedlovskaya, A. (2013). Ask and ye shall receive? The dynamics of employer-provided flexible work options and the need for public policy.Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 367–388.
Bruckmuller, S., Ryan, M. K., Rink, F., & Haslam, S. A. (2014). Beyond the glass ceiling: The glass cliff and its lessons for organizational policy. Social Issues and PolicyReview, 8(1), 202–232.
Buday, S. K., Stake, J. E., & Peterson, Z. D. (2012). Gender and the choice of a science career: the impact of social support and possible selves. Sex Roles, 66, 107–209.Butler, E., Clarke, K., & Simon, L. (2014). Women and girls into non-traditional occupations and industries: Broadening career options for secondary school students. North
Sydney: Economic Security for Women.Buyl, T., Boone, C., Hendriks, W., & Matthyssens, P. (2011). Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO character-
istics. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 151–177.Cahusac, E., & Kanji, S. (2014). Giving up: How gendered organizational cultures push women out. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(1), 57–70.Carey, D. C., & Ogden, D. (2000). CEO succession: A window on how boards can get it right when choosing a new chief executive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 81–99.Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725–741.Carli, L. L. (2004). Gender effects on persuasiveness and compliance gaining: A review. In J. S. Seiter, & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence and
compliance gaining (pp. 133–148). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2007). Overcoming resistance to women leaders: The importance of leadership style. In B. Kellerman, & D. Rode (Eds.),Women and leadership:
The state of play and strategies for change. San Francisco C.A.: John Wiley & Sons.Casinowsky, G. B. (2013). Working life on the move, domestic life at standstill? Work related travel and responsibility for home and family. Gender, Work and
Organization, 20(3), 311–326.Catalyst (2012). Census of Fortune 500: No Change for Women in Top Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/media/catalyst-2012-census-fortune-500-
January, 2015Catalyst (2015). Women CEOs of the S&P 500. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500 Accessed 5th November, 2015Chang, J., Connell, J., Burgess, J., & Travaglione, A. (2014). Gender wage gaps in Australian workplaces: Are policy responses working? Equality. Diversity and Inclusion:
An international Journal, 33(8), 764–775.Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66, 184–190.Christensen, K. E., & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work/family conflict? Journal of Family Issues, 11(4), 455–476.Christofides, L. N., Polycarpou, A., & Vrachimis, K. (2013). Gender wage gaps, ‘sticky floors’ and ‘glass ceilings’ in Europe. Labour Economics, 21, 86–102.Ciani, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on followers' ethical decision-making in the face of temptation: An
experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 581–594.Claessens, S., & Kodres, L. (2014). The regulatory responses to the Global Financial Crisis: Some uncomfortable questions. IMF Working Paper, WP/14/46 (pp. 1–33).Clerc, I., & Kels, P. (2013). Coping with career boundaries in masculine professions: Career politics of female professionals in the ICT and energy supplier industries in
Switzerland. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(2), 198–210.Cohen, W. A. (2000). The new art of the leader. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.Cole, K. (2001). Supervision: The theory and practice of first line management (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.Conway, N., & Sturges, J. (2013). Investigating unpaid overtime working among the part-time workforce. British Journal of Management (in press).Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling:When are women and racial/ethnicminorities are promoted to CEO? Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1080–1089.Coronel, J. M., Moreno, E., & Carrasco, M. J. (2010). Work–family conflicts and the organizational work culture as barriers to women educational managers. Gender,
Work and Organization, 17(2), 219–239.Corrigall, E. A., & Konrad, A. M. (2006). The relationship of job attribute preferences to employment, hours of paid work and family responsibilities: An analysis com-
paring women and men. Sex Roles, 54(1–2), 95–111.Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.Crowley, J. E., & Kolenikov, S. (2014). Flexible work options and mothers' perceptions of career harm. The Sociological Quarterly, 55(1), 168–195.Cunningham, G. B., Bergman, M. E., & Miner, K. N. (2014). Interpersonal mistreatment of women in the workplace. Sex Roles, 71, 1–6.Davies-Netzley, S. A. (1998). Women above the glass ceiling: Perceptions of corporate mobility and strategies for success. Gender and Society, 12(3), 339–355.Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., &McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory.
The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82.Desai, S. D., Chugh, D., & Brief, A. (2014). The implications of marriage structure for men's workplace attitudes, beliefs and behaviors towards women. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 59(2), 330–365.Di Tella, R., Haisken-De New, J., & MacCulloch, R. (2010). Happiness adaption to income and to status in an individual panel. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 76, 834–852.Diddams, M., & Chang, G. C. (2012). Only human: Exploring the nature of weakness in authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 593–603.Ding, W.W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2013). From bench to board: Gender differentiation in university scientists' participation in corporate scientific advisory boards.
Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1443–1464.Dipboye, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The dilemmas of workplace discrimination. In R. L. Dipboye, & A. Collella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and or-
ganizational bases (pp. 17–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Doey, L., Coplan, R. J., & Kingsbury, M. (2014). Bashful boys and coy girls: A review of gender differences in childhood shyness. Sex Roles, 70, 255–266.Doldor, E., Anderson, D., & Vinnicombe, S. (2013). Refining the concept of political will: A gender perspective. British Journal of Management, 24, 414–427.Douglas, C. (2012). The moderating role of leader and follower sex in dyads on the leadership behavior-leader effectiveness relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 23,
163–175.Dreher, G. F. (2003). Breaking the glass ceiling: The effects of sex ratios and work-life programs on female leadership at the top. Human Relations, 56(5), 541–562.Duberley, J., & Cohen, L. (2010). Gendering career capital: An investigation of scientific careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 187–197.Durbin, S., & Tomlinson, J. (2014). Female part-time managers: Careers, mentors and role models. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(4), 308–320.Dworkin, T. M., Maurer, V., & Schipani, C. A. (2012). Career mentoring for women: New horizons/expanded methods. Business Horizons, 55, 363–372.Eagly, A., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. (2003). Transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women
and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459–474.Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. New York: Harvard Business School Press.Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781–797.Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685–710.Ehrich, L. C. (2008). Mentoring and women managers: Another look at the field. Gender in Management: An international Journal, 23(7), 469–483.Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potential mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(1), 5–17.Ellemers, N., Rink, F., Derks, B., & Ryan, M. K. (2012). Women in high places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a
group (and how to prevent this). Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 163–187.Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 37(3), 293–309.England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24(2), 149–166.
Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A. B. (2009). On motivated role selection: Gender beliefs, distant goals and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 235–249.Evers, A., & Sieverding, M. (2014). Why do highly qualified women (still) earn less? Gender differences in long-term predictors of career success. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 38(1), 93–106.Ewing, M. E., Gano-Overway, L. A., Branta, C. F., & Seefeldt, V. D. (2002). The role of sports in youth development. In M. Gatz, M. Messner, & S. Ball-Rokeach (Eds.),
Paradoxes of youth and sport (pp. 31–41). Albany: State University of New York Press.Fitzsimmons, T., Callan, V., & Paulsen, N. (2014). Gender disparity in the C-suite: Domale and female CEOs differ in how they reached the top? The Leadership Quarterly,
25(2), 245–266.Fitzsimmons, T., & Callan, V. (2015a). Filling the pool. Perth, WA: Committee for Perth Retrieved from http://www.committeeforperth.com.au/researchfillingthepool.
html.Fitzsimmons, T., & Callan, V. (2015b). CEO selection: A capital perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, (under review).Fitzsimmons, T. W. (2011). Navigating CEO appointments: Do male and female CEOs differ in how they made it to the top? (published doctoral thesis) Brisbane. Queens-
land: University of Queensland.Fox, C. (2013). The higher you go, the wider the gap. In women in leadership: Understanding the gender pay gap: 21–32. Melbourne: Committee for Economic Develop-
ment of Australia.Fraser-Thomas, J., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(1),
19–40.Furst, S. A., & Reeves, M. (2008). Queens of the hill: Creative destruction and the emergence of executive leadership of women. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 372–384.Galli, E. B., & Muller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leadership development: Lessons from explorative case study of a multi-business firm. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 176–201.Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,
1120–1145.Gatrell, C. J., Burnett, S. B., Cooper, C. L., & Sparrow, P. (2014). Parents, perceptions and belonging: Exploring flexible working among UK fathers and mothers. British
Journal of Management, 25, 473–487.George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.George, W., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Glick, M. B. (2011). The role of the chief executive officer. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(2), 171–207.Goodman, J. S., Fields, D. L., & Blum, T. C. (2003). Cracks in the glass ceiling: In what kinds of organizations do women make it to the top? Group & Organization
Management, 28(4), 475–501.Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: Current status and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 58–78.Grenfell, M. (2008). Methodological principles. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (pp. 219–228). Stocksfield UK: Acumen Publishing.Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.Groysberg, B., & Abrahams, R. (2014). Manage our work, manage your life. Harvard Business Review, 58–66 March 2014,.Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(1), 124–136.Guerrero, S., Lapalme, M., & Seguin, M. (2015). Board chair authentic leadership and non-executives motivation and commitment. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 22(1), 88–101.Gutek, B. A. (2001). Women and paid work. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25(4), 379–393.Haynes, K. (2012). Gender, identity and the body in professional service firms. Gender, Work and Organization, 19(5), 489–507.Heilman, M., & Okimoto, T. (2007). Why are women penalised for success at male tasks?: The implicit communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(1), 81–92.Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
657–674.Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men's and women's altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(3), 431–441.Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4),
393–398.Henretta, J. C., & Campbell, R. T. (1978). Net worth as an aspect of status. American Journal of Sociology, 83(5), 1204–1223.Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B. (2005). Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women on the road to success. Harvard Business Review, 83(3), 43–46 48, 50–54.Hodges, M. J., & Budig, M. J. (2010). Who gets the daddy bonus? Organizational hegemonic masculinity and the impact of fatherhood on earnings. Gender and Society,
24(6), 717–745.Hoffman, J. J., Schniederjans, M. J., & Sebora, T. C. (2004). A multi-objective approach to CEO selection. Infor, 42(4), 237–255.Hoffman, L. W. (1972). Early childhood experiences and women's achievement motives. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 129–155.Hogue, M., DuBois, C. L., & Fox-Cardamone, L. (2010). Gender differences in pay expectations: The roles of job intention and self-view. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
34(2), 215–227.Holgersson, C. (2002). The social construction of top executives. In S. Sjostrand, J. Sandberg, & M. Tyrstrup (Eds.), Invisible management: The social construction of lead-
ership (pp. 105–125). Singapore: Thomson Asia Pty Ltd.Holgersson, C. (2013). Recruiting managing directors: Doing homosociality. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(4), 454–466.Holland, K. J., & Cortina, L. M. (2013). When sexism and feminism collide: the sexual harassment of working women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), 192–208.Hoobler, J. M., Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2014). Women's managerial aspirations: An organizational development perspective. Journal of Management, 40(3),
703–730.Hosoi, S. A., & Canetto, S. S. (2009). Constraints and choices of professional married women who quit careers and head home. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3),
363–369.Hoyt, C. L. (2012). Gender bias in employment contexts: A closer examination of the role incongruity principle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 86–96.Hultin, M. (2003). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Career consequences of occupational sex segregation.Work and Occupations, 30(1), 30–61.Ibarra, H., & Hansen, M. (2010). Women CEOs: Why so few? Harvard Business Review, 88(3), 14–15.Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class and race relations. Berkley: University of California Press.Jacobsen, J. P., & Levin, L. M. (1995). Effects of intermittent labor force attachment on women's earnings. Monthly Labor Review, 118(9), 14–19.Jagacinski, C. M. (2013). Women engineering students: Competence perceptions and achievement goals in the freshman engineering course. Sex Roles, 69, 644–657.Jenkins, R. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu. London: Rutledge.Jetten, J., Iyer, A., Branscombe, N. R., & Zhang, A. (2013). How the disadvantaged appraise group-based exclusions: The path from legitimacy to illegitimacy. European
Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 194–224.Johnson, C. E. (2011). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (4th ed.). London: Sage.Judge, T. A., & Livingston, B. A. (2008). Is the gap more than gender? A longitudinal analysis of gender, gender role orientation and earnings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(5), 994–1012.Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4),
765–780.Judge, T. A., Livingston, B. A., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys-and gals-really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(2), 390–407.Kaplan, S. N., Klebanov, M. M., & Sorensen, M. (2012). Which CEO characteristics and abilities matter? The Journal of Finance, 67(3), 973–1007.
Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, trans-formational leadership and identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 620–640.
Kay, K., & Shipman, C. (2014). The confidence gap. The Atlantic, May 2014: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/the-confidence-gap/359815/Accessed 19th January, 2015
Kelan, E. K. (2014). From biological clocks to unspeakable inequalities: the intersectional positioning of young professionals. British Journal of Management (in press).Khurana, R. (2001). Finding the right CEO: Why boards often make poor choices. Fall: MIT Sloan Management Review, 291–295.Khurana, R. (2004). Searching for a corporate savior: The irrational quest for charismatic CEOs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A. (2012). Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging
developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1835–1866.Koch, A. J., D'Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decisionmaking. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128–161.Koch, S. C., Konigorski, S., & Sieverding, M. (2014). Sexist behavior undermines women's performance in a job application situation. Sex Roles, 70, 79–87.Kokok, P. (2014). Let's talk sex(ism): Cross-national perspectives on women partners' narratives on equality and sexism at work in Germany and the UK. Perspectives
on Accounting (in press).Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1974). Organizational psychology: A book of readings (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Kossek, E. E., Barber, A. E., & Winters, D. (1999). Using flexible schedules in the managerial world: the power of peers. Human Resource Management, 38(1), 33–46.Krais, B. (1993). Gender and symbolic violence: Female oppression in the light of Pierre Bourdieu's theory of social practice. In C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma, & M. Postone
(Eds.), Bourdieu: Critical perspectives (pp. 156–177). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman.Kulik, C. T., & Olekalns, M. (2012). Negotiating the gender divide: lessons from the negotiation and organizational behavior literatures. Journal of Management, 38(4),
1387–1415.Lane, J. F. (2000). Pierre Bourdieu: A critical introduction. London: Pluto Press.Latu, I. M., Mast, M. S., Lammers, J., & Bombari, D. (2013). Successful female leaders empower behavior in leadership tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49,
444–448.Lawler, S. (2004). Rules of engagement: Habitus, power and resistance. In L. Adkins, & B. Skeggs (Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 110–128). Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.Leskinen, E. A., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Dimensions of disrespect: Mapping and measuring gender harassment in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1),
107–123.Levesque, L. L., O'Neill, R. M., Nelson, T., & Dumas, C. (2005). Sex differences in perceived importance of mentoring functions. Career Development International, 10(6/7).
(pp. 429–443), 429–443.Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature and nurture (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Lips, H., & Lawson, K. (2009).Work values, gender and expectations about work commitment and pay: Laying the groundwork for the ‘motherhood penalty’? Sex Roles,
61(9), 667–676.Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 36–46.London, B., Downey, G., Romero-Canyas, R., Rattan, A., & Tyson, D. (2012). Gender-based rejection sensitivity and academic self-silencing in women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 961–979.Lovejoy, M., & Stone, P. (2012). Opting back in: The influence of time at home on professional women's career redirection after opting out. Gender, Work and
Organization, 19(6), 631–653.Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental. Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 777–785.Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1),
86–101.Mackey, A., Molloy, J., & Morris, S. (2014). Scarce human capital in managerial labor markets. Journal of Management, 40(2), 399–421.Malpas, J. (2011). Between pink and blue: A multidimensional family approach to gender non-conforming children and their families. Family Process, 50(4), 453–470.Martell, R. F., Emrich, C. G., & Robison-Cox, J. (2012). From bias to exclusion: A multilevel emergent theory of gender segregation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 32, 137–162.Mastekaasa, A. (2000). Parenthood, gender and sickness absence. Social Science and Medicine, 50(12), 1827–1842.Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (pp. 49–66). Stocksfield UK: Acumen Publishing.Maume, D. J. (2004). Is the glass ceiling a unique form of inequality? Evidence from a random-effects model of managerial attainment. Work and Occupations, 31(2),
250–274.McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.McCann, L. (2013). Managing from the echo chamber: Employee dismay and leadership detachment in the British banking and insurance crisis. Critical Perspectives on
International Business, 9(4), 398–414.McDonald, P., Brown, K., & Bradley, L. (2005). Explanations for the provision-utilization gap in work–life policy. Women in Management Review, 20(1), 37–55.McKinsey (2013). McKinsey & Company Women Matter 2013 - Gender diversity in top management: Moving corporate culture, moving boundaries. http://www.
mckinsey.com/features/women_matter Accessed 17th September, 2014.Moss, K. (2008). Power and authority in the boardroom. Company Director. Retrieved from. http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Publications/
Company+Director+Magazine/2008/August/Spoken+Word+%E2%80%93+Power+and+authority+in+the+boardroom+Aug+08.htmMoss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Disruptions in women's self-promotion: The backlash avoidance model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 186–202.Mulcahy, M., & Linehan, C. (2014). Females and precarious board positions: Further evidence of the glass cliff. British Journal of Management, 25, 425–438.Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146–1164.Nichols, T. W., & Erakovic, R. (2013). Authentic leadership and implicit theory: A normative form of leadership? Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
34(2), 182–195.O'Brien, K. E., Biga, A., Kessler, S. R., & Allen, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management, 36(3), 537–554.Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman,M. N., &McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences inmanagers developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 46–67.O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bates, C. A., & Lean, E. R. (2009). Sexual harassment at work: A decade (plus) of progress. Journal of Management, 35(3), 503–537.Oshio, T., & Urakawa, K. (2014). The association between perceived income inequality and subjective well-being: Evidence from a social survey in Japan. Social
Indicators Research, 116, 755–770.Owen-Blakemore, J. E., & Hill, C. A. (2008). The child gender socialization scale: A measure to compare traditional and feminist parents. Sex Roles, 58(3), 192–207.Paap, K. (2008). How good men of the union justify inequality: Dilemmas of race and labor in the building trade. Labor Studies Journal, 33(4), 371–392.Pallier, G. (2003). Gender differences in self-assessment of accuracy of cognitive tasks. Sex Roles, 48(5), 265–276.Parry, K. W. (2000, June). Leading ladies: Women behaving as leaders. Management, 24–27.Parsons, S. (2014, July–August). Why I tell my employees to bring their kids to work. Harvard Business Review, 20.Pas, B., Peters, P., Doorwaard, H., Eisonga, R., & Lagro-Janssen, T. (2014). Supporting ‘superwomen’?: Conflicting role prescriptions, gender equality arrangements and
career motivation among Dutch women physicians. Human relations, 67(2), 175–204.de Pater, I. E., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2006). Gender differences in job challenge: A matter of task preferences or task allocation? Papers of the annual meeting of the society
for industrial and organizational psychology. New York: April.Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Halbesleben, J. R. (2014). Examining the influence of climate, supervisor guidance and behavioral integrity on work-family conflict: A de-
mands and resources approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 447–463.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.
Perlow, L. A. (1995). Putting the work back into work/family. Group & Organization Management, 20(2), 227–239.Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology,
65(3), 565–596.Peterson, S., Walumbwa, F., Byron, K., & Myrowitz, J. (2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high technology
start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35(2), 348–368.Pfeifer, C. (2013). The gender composition of establishments' workforces and gender gaps in wages and leadership positions. The Manchester School (in press).Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 32(4), 406–413.Pinnington, A. H., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Lawyers' professional careers: increasing women's inclusion in the partnership of law firms. Gender, Work and Organization,
20(6), 616–631.Porter, M. (1998). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.Rafnsdottir, G. L., & Heijstra, T. M. (2013). Balancing work-family life in academia: The power of time. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(3), 283–296.Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentoring roles in cross gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(3), 321–339.Ramaswarmi, A., Dreher, G. F., Bretz, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2010). Gender, mentoring and career success: The importance of organizational context. Personnel Psychology,
63(2), 385–405.Rankin, J. (2014). Male+54+ Oxbridge or Harvard educated= average company CEO. The Guardian, 29th July, 2104. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/
business/2014/jul/29/male-54-oxbridge-harvard-average-ceoRapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J., & Pruitt, B. (2002). Beyond work-family balance: Advancing gender equity and workplace performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Reed-Danahay, D. (2005). Locating Bourdieu. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Reichl, C., Leiter, M., & Spinath, F. (2014). Work-nonwork conflict and burnout: A meta-analysis. Human Relations, 67(8), 979–1005.Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining care self-evaluations, narcissism,
transformational leadership and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365–1381.Riggio, H. R., & Desrochers, S. J. (2006). Maternal employment relations with young adult's work and family expectations and self-efficacy. American Behavioral Scien-
tist, 49(10), 1328–1353.Rosser, M. (2005). Mentoring from the top: CEO perspectives. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 527–539.Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2012). A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. Journal of Management, 38(2),
719–739.Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645.Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69(2),
322–340.Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against fe-
male leaders. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 165–179.Ryan,M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 81–90.Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of
Management Review, 32(2), 549–572.Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Postems, T. (2007). Reactions to the glass cliff: Gender differences in explanations for the precariousness of women's leadership positions.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(2), 182–187.Sahlstein, E., & Allen, M. (2002). Sex differences in self-esteem: A meta-analytic assessment. In A. Allen, R. Preiss, B. Gayle, & N. Burrel (Eds.), Interpersonal communi-
cation research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 59–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Sarlet, M., Dumont, M., Dellacollette, N., & Dardenne, B. (2012). Prescription of protective paternalism for men in romantic and work contexts. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 36(4), 444–457.Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688.Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2005). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3),
440–452.Scott, J. (1992). Experience. In J. Butler, & J. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political. London: Rutledge.Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What's your story?”: A life stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395–417.Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls' and womens' performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles,
66, 175–183.Sherman, A. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2014). “Boys can be anything”: Effect of Barbie play on girls' career cognitions. Sex Roles, 70, 195–208.Sjostrand, S., & Tystrup, M. (2001). Recognised and unrecognised managerial leadership. In S. Sjostrand, J. Sandberg, & M. Tystrup (Eds.), Invisible management: The
social construction of leadership (pp. 1–28). Singapore: Asia Pte Ltd.Smedley, T. (2013). Financial Times–reports: Women in the workplace. ‘Glacial’ rate of progress brings calls for quotas. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/
b6868fec-13b2-11e3-9289-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3VXg6DJwB.Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2013). Why are so few females promoted into CEO and vice president positions? Danish empirical evidence, 1997–2007. ILRReview.
66(2). (pp. 381–408).Steinmeyer, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). What explains boys' stronger confidence in their intelligence? Sex Roles, 61(9–10), 736–749.Stockdale, M. S. (1998). The direct andmoderating influences of sexual harassment pervasiveness, coping strategies and gender onwork-related outcomes. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 521–535.Stone, P., & Lovejoy, M. (2004). Fast-track women and the ‘choice’ to stay home. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 526, 62–83.Sturm, R. E., Taylor, S. N., Atwater, L. E., & Braddy, P. W. (2014). Leader self-awareness: An examination and implications of women's under-prediction. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35, 657–677.Svendsen, G. L., & Svendsen, G. T. (2004). On the wealth of nations: Bourdieuconomics and social capital. In D. Swartz, & V. Zolberg (Eds.), After Bourdieu: Influence,
critique, elaboration (pp. 239–263). Dodrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Swartz, D. L. (1997). Culture & power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Teasdale, N. (2013). Fragmented sisters? The implications of flexible working policies for professional women's working relationships. Gender, Work and Organization,
20(4), 397–412.Tharenou, P. (1999). Gender differences in advancing to the top. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(1), 1–22.Tharenou, P. (2005). Does mentor support increase women's career advancement more than men's? The differential effects of career and psychosocial support.
Australian Journal of Management, 30(1), 77–109.Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, orga-
nizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392–415.Thompson, M.F. (2007). Earnings of a Lifetime: Comparing Women and Men with College and Graduate Degrees. In Context – A publication of the Indiana Business Re-
search Centre at IU's Kelley School of Business, 10(2), Retrieved from http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2009/mar-apr/article1.asp.Thompson, P. (2008). Field. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (pp. 67–81). Stocksfield UK: Acumen Publishing.Tischler, L. (2004). Where are the women? Fast Company, 79, 52–60.Van Engen, M. L., & Willemsen, T. M. (2004). Sex and leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research published in the 1990's. Psychological Reports, 94(1), 3–18.
Van Veldhoven, M. J., & Beijer, S. E. (2012). Workload, work-to-family conflict and health: Gender differences and the influence of private life context. Journal of SocialIssues, 68(4), 665–683.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240.Vinkenburg, C. J., van Engen, M. L., Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational
leadership a route to women's promotion? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 10–21.Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage.Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2013). A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. The
Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 607–661.Wetlesen, T. S. (2013). Work values in second generation of gender equality pioneers: A case study from Norway. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(1), 108–112.WGEA (2015). Gender pay gap statistics – September 2015. https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/Gender_Pay_Gap_Factsheet.pdf Accessed 6th November,
2015.White, B., Cox, C., & Cooper, C. (1992). Women's career development: A study of high flyers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Whitehead, G. (2009). Adolescent leadership development: Building a case for an authenticity framework. Education Management Administration and Leadership, 37. (pp.
847–872), 847–872.Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.Williams, J., & Cohen-Cooper, H. (2004). The public policy of motherhood. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 849–865.Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin,
128(5), 699–727.Yoder, J. D. (2002). 2001 division 35 presidential address: Context matters: understanding tokenism processes and their impact on women's work. Psychology of
![KM 364e-20150909175922 · GENDER/ MALE a FEMALE C] ... Affidavit to Explain Mutilation/Damage/Discrepancy, with payment Of](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b6ef5f77f8b9a46538bf42e/km-364e-gender-male-a-female-c-affidavit-to-explain-mutilationdamagediscrepancy.jpg)
