Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why Do Women Still Not Make It to the Top? Dominant Organizational Ideologies and Biases by Promotion Committees Limit Opportunities to Destination Positions

  • Feminist Forum Review Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior studies have made important strides in understanding the drivers of gender bias facing women at the top. Yet, relatively little is known about the intra-organizational power dynamics of how and why these patterns still persist despite a plethora of initiatives to redress the phenomenon over the last several decades. This paper develops an intra-organizational power perspective on the dynamics of promotion bias to destination positions. We propose that social dominance emerges as social categorization based on a candidate’s visible and invisible markers leads to distorted perceptions and stereotyping which, when combined with group favoritism and conformity pressures within committee practices, engender the perceived degree of ideological asymmetry between the candidate and the organization. It is the magnitude of the perceived degree of ideological asymmetry that drives promotion bias. This bias has potent effects on the institutionalization of power over time. Our perspective ultimately offers new insights into the role of dominant organizational ideology and dynamics of biases that continue to limit promotion opportunities of women to destination positions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 72–95. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2009.37012181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, Y., & Shortland, S. (2008). Women and international assignments: Taking stock—a 25 year review. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 199–216. doi:10.1002/hrm.20208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., Ames, D. R., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 90–101. doi:10.1177/0146167207307489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Auster, E. (1988). Behind closed doors: Sex bias at professional and managerial levels. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 1(2), 129–144. doi:10.1007/BF01385042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auster, E. (1989). Task characteristics as a bridge between macro and micro research on salary inequality between men and women. Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 173–193. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4282082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auster, E. (1994). Demystifying the glass ceiling: The organizational and interpersonal dynamics of gender bias. Business in the Contemporary World, 5(3), 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auster, E., & Drazin, R. (1988). Sex inequality at higher levels in the hierarchy: An intra-organizational perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 58(2), 216–227. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1988.tb01057.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 425–537. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 426–436. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinio, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Counternormative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an organizational setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 237–250. doi:10.1002/job.185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: In-group love or out-group hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. D., Kornberger, M., Clegg, S., & Carter, C. (2010). ‘Invisible walls’ and ‘silent hierarchies’: A case study of power relations in an architectural firm. Human Relations, 63(4), 525–549. doi:10.1177/0018726709339862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buono, A. F., & Kamm, J. B. (1983). Marginality and the organizational socialization of female managers. Human Relations, 36(12), 1125–1143. doi:10.1177/001872678303601204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010). Pipelines broken promise. New York: Catalyst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalyst. (2005). Catalyst census of women corporate officers and top earners of the fortune 500: Ten years later: Limited progress, challenges persist. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/file/207/2005%20cote.pdf.

  • Catalyst. (2009a). People of color in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/356/people-of-color-in-the-us.

  • Catalyst. (2009b). Women in U.S. management. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/206/women-in-us-management/.

  • Chen, F. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 111–125. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78–95. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.15281431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colella, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Varma, A. (1997). Appraising the performance of employees with disabilities: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 7(1), 23–53. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(97)90004-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55–75. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.27745097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courpasson, D. (2009). We have always been oligarchs: Business elites in polyarchy. In S. R. Clegg & C. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 424–442). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, T., Jr. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34–47. doi:10.5465/AME.1991.4274675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derks, B., Ellemers, N., van Laar, C., & de Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 519–535. doi:10.1348/014466610X525280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devillard, S., Sancier-Sultan, S., & Werner, C. (2014). Why gender diversity at the top remains a challenge. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/why_gender_diversity_at_the_top_remains_a_challenge.

  • DiDonato, T. E., Ullrich, J., & Krueger, J. I. (2011). Social perception as induction and inference: An integrative model of intergroup differentiation, in-group favoritism, and differential accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 66–83. doi:10.1037/a0021051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 104–115. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459–474. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, R., & Padavic, I. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1121–1143. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26585842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England, P., & Li, S. (2006). Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971–2002. Gender and Society, 20(5), 657–677. doi:10.1177/0891243206290753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esser, J. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 116–141. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers: Where are we? Where do we go from here? Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 269–285. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00665.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M., O’Connor, E. J., & Aguinis, H. (2001). All for one and one for all? The development and transfer of power across organizational levels. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 224–242. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4378017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. (2002). What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict: The problem of the century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 123–128. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647–661. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fotaki, M., & Prasad, A. (2015). Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 556–575. doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1963). The local-cosmopolitan scientist. American Journal of Sociology, 69(3), 249–259. doi:10.1086/223583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. S., Fields, D. L., & Blum, T. C. (2003). Cracks in the glass ceiling: In what types of organizations do women make it to the top? Group and Organization Management, 28(4), 475–501. doi:10.1177/1059601103251232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopaldas, A., Prasad, A., & Woodard, D. (2009). Intersectionality: Insights for consumer research. In A. L. McGill & S. Shavitt (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 36, pp. 789–790). Duluth: Association of Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, E. H. (2005). Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms. American Sociological Review, 70(4), 702–728. doi:10.1177/000312240507000408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, E. H. (2006). Work uncertainty and the promotion of professional women: The case of law firm partnership. Social Forces, 85(2), 865–885. doi:10.1353/sof.2007.0004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, E. H., & Kmec, J. A. (2009). Hierarchical rank and women’s organizational mobility: Glass ceilings in corporate law firms. American Journal of Sociology, 114(5), 1428–1474. doi:10.1086/595950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1957a). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(3), 281–306. doi:10.2307/2391000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1957b). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles II. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(4), 444–480. doi:10.2307/2390795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. (1995). The effect of sex similarity on recruiters evaluations of actual applicants: A test of the similarity-attraction paradigm. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 85–98. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01747.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallett, T. (2003). Symbolic power and organizational culture. Sociological Theory, 21(2), 128–149. doi:10.1111/1467-9558.00181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., Price, K., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. doi:10.2307/256901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045. doi:10.2307/3069328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.9402210154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. J. (2004). Dynamics in organizational culture. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 190–211). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Harris, D., & Wolfson, P. J. (2006). The pipeline to the top: Women and men in the top executive ranks of US corporations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(4), 42–64. doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.23270306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, D., Henningsen, M., Eden, J., & Cruz, M. (2006). Examining the symptoms of groupthink and retrospective sensemaking. Small Group Research, 37(1), 36–64. doi:10.1177/1046496405281772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 43–54. doi:10.1225/R0503B.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. (2003). Intergroup relations. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 479–502). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M., & Smith, J. (2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 89–131. doi:10.1080/10463280701592070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, N., Pine, K. J., Cahill, N., Orakcuglu, I., & Fletcher, B. (2015). Unbuttoned: The interaction between provocativeness of female work attire and occupational status. Sex Roles, 72(3–4), 105–116. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0450-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: Psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Muller, P. A., & Greifeneder, R. (2011). Cognitive processes in procedural justice judgments: The role of ease-of-retrieval, uncertainty, and experience. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 726–750. doi:10.1002/job.700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–920. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 80–105. doi:10.2307/256513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of cultures consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236. doi:10.1177/109442810033001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, I., Kotrba, L., & Roebuck, A. (2015). Leaders as males? The role of industry gender composition. Sex Roles, 72(7–8), 294–307. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0462-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R., & Johnson, E. (2005). Consequences of individuals fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C. T., Roberson, L., & Perry, E. L. (2007). The multiple category problem: Category activation and inhibition in the hiring process. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 529–548. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19(2), 373–404. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1983). Effects of candidate characteristics on management promotion decisions: An experimental study. Personnel Psychology, 36(2), 241–259. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb01435.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398. doi:10.1080/19416520802211628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. (2006). The opt-out revolt: Why people are leaving companies to create kaleidoscope careers. Palo Alto: Davis-Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, M., & Linehan, C. (2014). Females and precarious board positions: Further evidence of the glass cliff. British Journal of Management, 25(3), 425–438. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, C. E., Lane, H. W., & Brechu, M. B. (1999). Taking self-managed teams to Mexico. Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 15–25. doi:10.5465/AME.1999.2210310.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. doi:10.2307/256404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.0.CO;2-K.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogbor, J. O. (2001). Critical theory and the hegemony of corporate culture. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(6), 590–608. doi:10.1108/09534810110408015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588. doi:10.1177/017084069201300403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. (1998). Context and charisma: A meso level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24(5), 643–71. doi:10.1177/014920639802400505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1994). Investigating the glass ceiling phenomenon: An empirical study of actual promotions to top management. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 68–86. doi:10.2307/256770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1997). Effect of race on promotions to top management in a federal department. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 112–128. doi:10.2307/257022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2002). Exploring the influence of decision makers race and gender on actual promotions to top management. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 397–428. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00115.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28(2), 177–193. doi:10.1177/014920630202800203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, A. (2009). On the etiology of sexual phenomenology. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16(2), 233–251. doi:10.1177/097152150901600204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, A. (2012). Beyond analytical dichotomies. Human Relations, 65(5), 567–595. doi:10.1177/0018726711432183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, A. (2015). Beyond positivism: Towards paradigm pluralism in cross cultural management research. In N. Holden, S. Michailova, & S. Tietze (Eds.), Routledge companion to cross-cultural management (pp. 198–207). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, A. (2016). Cyborg writing as a political acting: Reading Donna Haraway in organization studies. Gender, Work and Organization. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/gwao.12128.

  • Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191–263). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320. doi:10.1080/10463280601055772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 482–521. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997.9707154067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194–215. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.27752724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragins, B. R., & Winkel, D. E. (2011). Gender, emotion and power in work relationships. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 377–393. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103–1118. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J. (2011). Enabling selves to conduct themselves safely: Safety committee discourse as governmentality in practice. Human Relations, 64(3), 459–478. doi:10.1177/0018726710380976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remedios, J. D., & Snyder, S. H. (2015). How women of color detect and respond to multiple forms of prejudice. Sex Roles, 73(9–10), 371–383. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0453-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson-Ahlfinger, N., & Esser, J. K. (2001). Testing the groupthink model: Effects of promotional leadership and conformity predisposition. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(1), 31–42. doi:10.2224/sbp.2001.29.1.31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberson, L., Galvin, B. M., & Charles, A. C. (2007). When group identities matter: Bias in performance appraisal. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 617–650. doi:10.1080/078559818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusaw, A. C. (2000). Uncovering training resistance: A critical theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(3), 249–263. doi:10.1108/09534810010330896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2009). Glass cliffs are not so easily scaled: On the precariousness of female CEOs positions. British Journal of Management, 20(1), 13–16. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00598.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Kulich, C. (2010). Politics and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to contest hard-to-win seats. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(1), 56–64. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01541.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholten, L., van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision making: Effects of process accountability on information sharing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 539–552. doi:10.1177/1088868307304092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Luthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655–669. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1080–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shteynberg, G., Leslie, L. M., Knight, A. P., & Mayer, D. M. (2011). But affirmative action hurts us! Race-related beliefs shape perceptions of White disadvantage and policy unfairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeaton, G., Byrne, D., & Murnen, S. K. (1989). The repulsion hypothesis revisited: Similarity irrelevance or dissimilarity bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 54–59. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 364–373. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf, S. A., & London, M. (1981). Management promotions: Individual and organizational factors influencing the decision process. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 539–549. doi:10.5465/AMR.1981.4285668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. S., Tracey, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 495–523. doi:10.2307/2393795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 293–326. doi:10.2307/2667073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 81–101. doi:10.2307/3069286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Porter, L. W., & Egan, T. D. (2002). When both similarities and dissimilarities matter: Extending the concept of relational demography. Human Relations, 55(8), 899–907. doi:10.1177/0018726702055008176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25006-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, B. (2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(2), 113–140. doi:10.1080/13594320701275833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilber, T. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254. doi:10.2307/3069294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zweigenhaft, R. L., & Domhoff, G. W. (2006). Diversity in the power elite: How it happens, why it matters (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Carolyn Egri, Ed Freeman, Yuan Jiang, and Joanne Martin for their valuable insights and comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We also want to acknowledge the feedback we received on this paper when it was presented at the Academy of Management Meetings in Anaheim, California and at an invited seminar at the College of Business at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon. Our thanks to Bori Csillag, Katie Zulak, Kristen Tse, Trish Ruebottom, Anastasia Feigin, and Debbie Farrell for their research assistance and help with manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulich School of Business, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Ellen R. Auster

  2. EGADE Business School, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Carlos Lazo 100, Santa Fe, 03189, Mexico City, Mexico

    Ajnesh Prasad

Authors
  1. Ellen R. Auster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ajnesh Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ajnesh Prasad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Auster, E.R., Prasad, A. Why Do Women Still Not Make It to the Top? Dominant Organizational Ideologies and Biases by Promotion Committees Limit Opportunities to Destination Positions. Sex Roles 75, 177–196 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0607-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0607-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation