Chapter 7: Education, employment, and leadership

As previously discussed, men and women are often socialized differently in terms of gender roles and expectations. Men are often expected to be assertive, competitive, and independent, while women are expected to be nurturing, cooperative, and emotionally expressive. Men are also often encouraged to pursue careers in traditionally male-dominated fields, while women are encouraged to pursue traditionally female-dominated fields or to prioritize their roles as caretakers and homemakers. 

Additionally, boys are often taught to suppress their emotions and to avoid showing vulnerability, while girls are taught to value relationships and to be more emotionally open. In this chapter, we will discuss how these socialization patterns can lead to gender disparities in areas such as education, employment, and leadership.

            "Woman Reading Book" by Christina Morillo is in the Public Domain, CC0

Gender disparities in education can manifest in a variety of ways including differences in enrollment and completion rates, academic achievement, and access to educational resources and opportunities (Antai & Anam, 2016; Lopez, 2003).  In developing countries, one of the most significant disparities is that girls are less likely to be enrolled in school and more likely to drop out early (Shah, Hussain, & Sultana, 2011). This is often due to cultural and economic factors such as poverty and early marriage as well as lack of access to education and discrimination.  

In contrast, in many other countries around the world, girls may face significant barriers to attending school, such as poverty, cultural attitudes that prioritize boys' education, lack of access to transportation, and lack of infrastructure. For example, in some countries in Africa and Asia, girls are less likely to attend school because of child marriage, early pregnancies, and lack of sanitation facilities.

Even when girls are enrolled in school, they may face barriers to academic achievement. Research has shown that girls often receive less attention and support from teachers (Jones & Dindia, 2004) and may be steered away from certain subjects, such as math and science, which are seen as more suitable for boys (Fennema & Leder, 1990).  Additionally, girls may have less access to educational resources and opportunities. For example, they may have fewer opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities, take advanced classes, or attend school in safe and well-equipped facilities.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2022), girls in the United States have a relatively high rate of school attendance compared to girls in many other countries around the world.  In the United States, girls have had the right to attend school since the 19th century and laws have been passed to ensure that girls have access to education. Additionally, the country has a relatively strong education system which can be accessible to most people.  

However, there are still some barriers that can prevent girls from attending school in the United States. For example, girls from low-income families or girls who live in rural areas may have limited access to quality education (Erby & Brown, 2011).  Girls who are immigrants or who are from ethnic minorities may also face additional barriers to school attendance (Nazir & Mahmood, 2021).

According to Hatch (1994), even in the United States, girls and boys are often treated differently in the classroom. For example, teachers may have different expectations for girls and boys in terms of their behavior and academic performance. Boys may be expected to be more active and noisier while girls may be expected to be more passive and quieter. Similarly, boys may be expected to perform better in subjects such as math and science while girls may be expected to perform better in subjects such as English and social studies.

Teachers may also give different levels of attention and support to girls and boys. Research has shown that teachers may pay more attention to boys and may call on them more often in class. Boys may also be more likely to receive extra help and support with their work.  They may also give different types of feedback to girls and boys. Boys may receive feedback that is more focused on their intelligence and ability, while girls may receive feedback that is more focused on their effort and behavior.

"People Sitting on Chairs Inside the Room" by RODNAE Productions is in the Public Domain, CC0

Additionally, teachers may have different expectations for girls and boys when it comes to participating in class. Boys may be expected to participate more and may be encouraged to speak up more in class, while girls may be expected to be more passive and to speak up less.  These expectations are consistent with modern gender stereotypes which encourage males to be more dominant and assertive and girls to be more modest and submissive.

Gender stereotypes are often reinforced in educational materials and curricula, which can lead to the reinforcement of stereotypes in the classroom and can limit the aspirations and opportunities of students.  For example, many educational materials and curricula do not include a diverse range of perspectives and stories, which can lead to the reinforcement of stereotypes about gender, race, and other marginalized groups. Textbooks may feature mostly stories and examples from male perspectives and not have enough representation of female or non-binary individuals.

There are many children's books that have been criticized for promoting gender stereotypes:

• "Goodnight Stories for Rebel Girls" by Elena Favilli and Francesca Cavallo, which features stories of strong and successful women, but has been criticized for perpetuating gender stereotypes by focusing on women in traditionally feminine roles.
• "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Andersen, the story has been criticized for its portrayal of the male and female characters, with the male character being strong and active while the female character is passive and in need of rescue.
• "Cinderella" by Charles Perrault, the story has been criticized for promoting the idea that a woman's worth is based on her physical appearance and for teaching young girls that they must rely on men to rescue them from difficult situations.
• "The Little Engine That Could" by Watty Piper, the story has been criticized for promoting gender stereotypes by depicting the male engine as strong and capable, while the female engines are weak and unable to complete the task.

However, it is worth noting that many of these books and stories have been reinterpreted and adapted in recent years to be more inclusive and less stereotypical.

Many educational materials and curricula are divided into "boys' subjects" and "girls' subjects," which can limit the aspirations and opportunities of students based on their gender. For example, girls may be steered away from subjects such as math and science while boys may be steered away from subjects such as home economics or art.  In addition, many educational materials and curricula feature role models that reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Examples include history books which feature mostly male leaders and inventors while neglecting to mention the contributions of women or non-binary individuals.

These differences in treatment can have a significant impact on the academic and social development of girls and boys. Boys may become more confident in their abilities and more motivated to succeed academically, while girls may become less confident and less motivated. Therefore, it is important for teachers to be aware of these biases and to make an effort to treat all students equally and provide them with the same opportunities and support.  

Contrasting research, however, has shown that there may be some differences in academic performance between boys and girls in school, with girls generally performing better than boys in most subject areas (Voyer & Voyer, 2014). In general, girls tend to have higher grades, better attendance records, and more positive attitudes towards school. Girls are more likely to take advanced classes and to graduate from high school and college. Girls also tend to score higher in reading and writing than boys.  However, these differences tend to be small and there is a great deal of overlap between the scores of boys and girls on standardized measures.

There are several possible explanations for these differences in academic performance. One theory is that it is related to differences in socialization and cultural expectations, as girls are often encouraged to value education and to work hard in school, while boys may be encouraged to value other activities and interests. Additionally, girls may be more likely to develop study skills, time management skills, and to seek help when they need it.

"Person Writing On White Board" by Jeswin Thomas is in the Public Domain, CC0

According to Morando (2021), boys are more likely to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields for a variety of reasons.  For example, boys are often socialized from a young age to be interested in math, science, and technology. They may be encouraged to play with toys that promote these interests, such as building sets and video games, and may be exposed to role models who work in STEM fields.  

Another reason may be due to stereotypes about ability and intelligence.  Boys are often thought to be naturally inclined to excel in math and science and may be encouraged to pursue careers in STEM fields as a result (Gasteen, 2019). This stereotype can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where boys may be more likely to pursue STEM courses because they believe they are capable of excelling in these fields, whereas girls may not consider pursuing a STEM major because they believe they are not capable of excelling in these fields.  Boys may also view these fields as being more "masculine" and may be more likely to feel comfortable in them.

Boys may also be more likely to pursue STEM fields because they see more representation of men in these fields. They may have more male role models and may be more likely to have male teachers and professors in STEM classes.  Conversely, girls are more likely to be discouraged by the lack of representation in these fields and may not see role models or female peers in the field, which can further discourage them from pursuing these subject areas.

These same gender expectations can have a significant impact on the choice of major in college. Research has shown that men and women tend to choose majors that align with traditional gender roles and stereotypes. For example, men are more likely to choose majors in fields such as engineering, computer science, and physics, while women are more likely to choose majors in fields such as education, nursing, and psychology.  

This is partly due to socialization, as men and women are often encouraged to pursue certain types of careers from an early age. Boys are more likely to be exposed to, and encouraged to pursue careers in STEM fields, while girls are more likely to be exposed to and encouraged to pursue careers in fields such as education and healthcare.

Another potential explanation for the difference in types of courses that male and female students pursue is stereotype threat.   "Stereotype threat" refers to the phenomenon where individuals who belong to a group that is negatively stereotyped in a particular domain, such as math for women, may underperform in that domain due to the fear of confirming the stereotype (see Inzlicht & Schmader, 2012).  

Stereotype threat occurs when an individual is in a situation where a negative stereotype about their group is made salient. This anxiety or concern can then lead to poorer performance in that domain, which in turn can help to perpetuate the stereotype.   In these situations, individuals may experience anxiety and self-doubt, which can lead to poor performance and decreased confidence.

The concept of stereotype threat was first introduced in the mid-1990s by social psychologists Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson who showed that when African American college students were reminded of their race before taking a test, they performed worse than when they were not reminded of their race. Subsequent research has shown that stereotype threat can affect a wide range of groups, including women in math and science, older adults in memory tasks, and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in academic tasks.

Stereotype threat can occur in any situation where a person is aware of a stereotype associated with their group, whether or not the stereotype is true. Furthermore, stereotype threat is not unique to underrepresented groups and can also affect individuals who belong to majority groups when they are in situations where their group is negatively stereotyped.  

For example, if a woman is taking a math test and is aware of the stereotype that women are not as good at math as men, she may experience stereotype threat. This anxiety can lead to her performing worse on the math test, which can then be used to confirm the stereotype that women are not as good at math as men.

Steele argues that stereotype threat can be particularly harmful because it can cause individuals to underperform in situations where they would otherwise be able to succeed. This is because the fear or anxiety that individuals experience can lead to decreased motivation, increased self-doubt, and other negative outcomes that can interfere with their ability to perform at their best.

Steele also suggests that stereotype threat can be reduced by making people aware of the phenomenon, creating a sense of belonging and by providing individuals with strategies for coping with the stress and anxiety that stereotype threat can cause. He also emphasizes the importance of creating more inclusive and supportive environments that minimize the potential for stereotype threat to occur.

These effects are not isolated to women and can also affect other underrepresented groups such as people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with disabilities. Furthermore, these effects are often intersectional and can compound for individuals who belong to multiple underrepresented groups.  

To reduce stereotype threat, it is important to create a positive and inclusive environment, providing role models and mentoring, providing education about the impact of stereotypes, and promoting a growth mindset. Furthermore, interventions such as cognitive debiasing techniques and self-affirmation may help individuals to cope with stereotype threat.Bottom of Form

Overall, these disparities in education can have long-term consequences for girls, including reduced economic opportunities and increased vulnerability to poverty. Therefore, it is important to address the root causes of these disparities and to implement policies and programs that support the education of girls.

There are several sex differences that have been observed in academia, including differences in representation, career advancement, and the type of research conducted by men and women.  One of the most well-documented differences is the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions and in certain fields of study (Sanders, Willemsen, & Millar, 2009). 

For example, women are underrepresented in tenure-track positions and in higher-paying academic fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Similarly, women are underrepresented in academic leadership positions, such as department chairs, deans, and presidents of universities.

Another difference is that women tend to have fewer opportunities for career advancement and are less likely to receive recognition for their work. Studies have found that women are less likely to be awarded research grants, invited to speak at conferences, and cited in publications.  

Additionally, research has suggested that men and women may conduct different types of research. Women are more likely to conduct research in fields that are traditionally seen as “feminine” such as education, health and social sciences whereas men tend to dominate research in fields such as physics and computer science.  Once again, these differences in representation and career advancement can limit the contribution and influence of women in academia, leading to a lack of diversity and perspectives in research and teaching. 

There are several major gender differences in employment, including differences in representation, pay, and job opportunities.  In terms of representation, for example, women are underrepresented in certain industries and occupations, particularly in leadership positions and in fields that are traditionally male-dominated such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).

Despite considerable attempts to rectify a long-standing status quo, women are often paid less than men for the same work. This is often referred to as the "gender pay gap," and it can vary depending on factors such as race, education, and location.  The gender pay gap refers to the difference in pay between men and women who are working in the same occupation and/or industry (Abdel-Raouf & Buhler, 2020). The gap is typically measured by comparing the median earnings of men and women.   The gender pay gap can vary depending on factors such as race, education, and location, but on average, women tend to be paid less than men. The gap can also vary depending on the level of the job, with women more likely to be paid less than men at higher levels (Fernandes & Ferreira, 2021).

"Judgement scale and gavel in judge office" by Sora Shimazaki is in the Public Domain, CC0

Women may have fewer opportunities for career advancement and may be less likely to receive recognition for their work. Additionally, women are more likely to work in part-time or flexible roles, which often come with fewer benefits and less job security (Rose, Hewitt, & Baxter, 2013).  This is often due to the fact that women are more likely to have caregiving responsibilities for children or other dependents, which can make it more difficult for them to commit to full-time work. Additionally, women may also be more likely to work in industries or occupations that offer more part-time work opportunities.

There are several factors that limit career advancement for women, including discrimination, lack of mentorship and sponsorship, and work-life balance.  Women may face discrimination in the workplace including bias in hiring, bias in promotion, and harassment. This can make it more difficult for women to move up the ranks and to secure leadership positions.

Women may also have fewer opportunities for mentorship and sponsorship, which can make it more difficult for them to gain the skills, experience, and connections they need to advance in their careers.  Furthermore, as previously addressed, women are more likely to have caregiving responsibilities which can make it more difficult for them to devote the time and energy needed to advance their careers.

The notion of women expected to be caregivers is consistent with gender stereotypes and socialization experiences.  Women are often socialized from a young age to be nurturing and to prioritize the care of others. They are also more likely to be expected to take on caregiving responsibilities for children, elderly parents, and other family members.

These expectations stem from earlier experiences in their development.  Girls are often socialized to be nurturing in a variety of ways, including:

• Encouragement to play with dolls and other toys that promote nurturing behaviors, such as caregiving and domestic tasks.
• Reinforcement of gender stereotypes through media, literature, and other forms of popular culture that depict women as caretakers and nurturers.
• Expectations and pressure from parents, family members, and society at large that girls should be more empathetic and emotionally expressive than boys.
• Girls are also more likely to be encouraged to pursue careers in traditionally female-dominated fields such as education, nursing, and social work, which tend to involve caregiving and nurturing responsibilities.
• Girls are also more likely to be encouraged to take on caregiving responsibilities for family members and friends.
• Girls are often taught to prioritize relationships and to be more emotionally open.

Conversely, boys are often socialized to be less nurturing than girls and may be encouraged to suppress or hide their emotions. This socialization can take many forms, including:

• Encouragement to play with toys that promote assertiveness and competitiveness, such as action figures and sports equipment.
• Reinforcement of gender stereotypes through media, literature, and other forms of popular culture that depict men as strong, independent, and unemotional.
• Expectations and pressure from parents, family members, and society at large that boys should be less empathetic and emotionally expressive than girls.
• Boys are also less likely to be encouraged to pursue careers in traditionally female-dominated fields such as education, nursing, and social work, which tend to involve caregiving and nurturing responsibilities.
• Boys are also less likely to be encouraged to take on caregiving responsibilities for family members and friends.
• Boys are often taught to suppress their emotions and to avoid showing vulnerability.

Overall, this socialization can lead to boys developing an emotional disconnection, leading to difficulties in understanding and expressing emotions and difficulties in maintaining healthy relationships. It is important for society to recognize that men are equally capable of nurturing and that it is important for men to be comfortable and encouraged to express their emotions and to be involved in caregiving.  

These differences in representation, pay, job opportunities and discrimination can have long-term consequences for women including reduced economic opportunities and increased vulnerability to poverty. Therefore, it is important to address the root causes of these disparities and to implement policies and programs that support the employment of women.

Other gender differences in employment have been noted.   For example, research has found that women who are perceived as being more masculine in their behavior and communication styles may be more likely to be promoted and earn higher salaries than those who are perceived as more feminine. This is often referred to as the "masculine trait penalty" or the "feminine trait premium". 

The "masculine trait penalty" refers to the phenomenon where women who are perceived as being more masculine in their behavior and communication styles are less likely to be hired, promoted, or receive fair compensation compared to women who are perceived as more feminine. This is because traditional gender norms and stereotypes often associate masculinity with leadership and assertiveness, while femininity is associated with being nurturing and supportive. As a result, women who exhibit masculine traits may be seen as less suitable for certain roles or less likable and may face discrimination as a result.

Additionally, research on this topic has also shown that men who exhibit more feminine traits may also face penalties in the workplace, such as being less likely to be promoted or receive fair compensation, known as the "feminine trait penalty" or "gender non-conformity penalty". These penalties are not unique to the workplace but can also be present in other areas of life such as education and healthcare.

Additionally, women who are mothers may also be more likely to be segregated into certain types of jobs that are seen as more "compatible" with motherhood.  The "motherhood penalty", a phrase coined by sociologists Michelle Budig and Paula England (2001), refers to the phenomenon where mothers are often perceived as less committed to their jobs and are more likely to be passed over for promotions and pay raises than women without children.  Research has found that mothers experience a wage penalty of around 4-6% for each child they have, and that this penalty is larger for women of color. 

Furthermore, mothers are also less likely to be hired for certain jobs, and when they are, they are often offered lower salaries than non-mothers. This penalty can also affect fathers, although to a lesser extent.  Additionally, lack of policy supporting working parents, such as paid parental leave, affordable child care and flexible work arrangements, can exacerbate this penalty and make it difficult for mothers to balance work and family responsibilities.

The "sticky floor" phenomenon (see Booth, Francesconi, & Frank, 2003) refers to the idea that women tend to be "stuck" in low-paying or low-level jobs and are less likely to advance to higher-paying or higher-level positions than men. This can happen for a variety of reasons, including discrimination, bias and lack of access to mentorship and networking opportunities. Additionally, women may be more likely to take time off work for caregiving responsibilities, which can make it more difficult for them to advance in their careers. 

"Focused housewife in apron cleaning wooden table" by Ketut Subiyanto is in the Public Domain, CC0

Careers that are considered "sticky floors" for women are those in which women are disproportionately represented in entry-level positions but face significant barriers to advancement. Some examples of careers that are considered sticky floors for women include:

• Administrative or secretarial roles: Women often make up the majority of employees in these positions, which are typically low-paying and have limited opportunities for advancement.
• Retail and customer service: Women are often overrepresented in these roles, which are characterized by low pay, limited benefits, and few opportunities for advancement.
• Healthcare support roles: Women are heavily represented in roles such as nursing assistants, home health aides, and medical assistants, which are often low-paying and have limited opportunities for advancement.
• Education: Female teachers and educators are often paid less than their male counterparts, even when they have the same qualifications and experience.
• Service sector jobs: Women are often overrepresented in roles such as waitresses, cashiers, and cleaning staff, which are characterized by low pay, limited benefits, and few opportunities for advancement.

These are just a few examples.  However, this phenomenon is not limited to these fields and can happen in any field or industry where women are underrepresented or facing discrimination.   This is an important career consideration to account for as the sticky floor phenomenon can lead to a "glass ceiling" effect, where women are underrepresented in senior-level and high-paying jobs (see Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009).

The "glass ceiling" refers to the invisible barrier that often prevents women and minorities from reaching the highest levels of an organization. Despite progress in recent years, women are still underrepresented in top leadership positions in many industries.  The term "glass ceiling" was first used in the 1980s to describe the invisible barrier that keeps women and minorities from advancing to top executive positions within organizations. 

The metaphor suggests that even though these individuals can see the upper levels of the organization, they are not able to reach them due to a variety of factors such as discrimination, bias, and lack of mentors and role models.

One example of a woman executive hitting the glass ceiling is when a woman is qualified and capable of being promoted to a higher level within a company but is not given that opportunity due to discrimination or bias against women in leadership roles. This can happen despite her qualifications, skills, and experience, and can limit her career advancement and earning potential.  

Another example of a woman executive hitting the glass ceiling would be if a woman is consistently passed over for high-profile projects or assignments that are seen as critical for advancement within the company, despite having the necessary qualifications and experience. This can happen due to the unconscious biases and perceptions that women are not as capable as men in leadership roles and can limit a woman's visibility and opportunities to gain experience and develop the skills needed to be considered for top leadership positions. Additionally, lack of diversity and representation of women in leadership team can also be an example of hitting glass ceiling.

The term "glass ceiling" is commonly used in English-speaking countries to refer to the invisible barrier that prevents women and other marginalized groups from advancing to top leadership positions within an organization. However, in other cultures and languages, there may be different terms or phrases used to describe this phenomenon.

For example, in French, the term "plafond de verre" is used, which translates literally to "glass ceiling." Similarly, in Spanish, the term "techo de cristal" is used, which also translates to "glass ceiling."   In Japan, the term "u-turn" is used to describe a phenomenon where women who are successful in their careers leave the workforce after having children and are unable to return to their previous positions.

In China, the phrase "golden cage" is used to describe the glass ceiling phenomenon.   In India, the term "glass ceiling" is not very common, but the concepts of discrimination and bias against women in the workforce are widely recognized.  Finally, in Germany, the term "glass ceiling" is also not very common, but the concept of "glass cliff" is used to describe the phenomenon where women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions during times of crisis or financial difficulty, when the risk of failure is high.

The glass ceiling effect is a subtle form of discrimination, it is not always intentional, but it is often the result of unconscious bias and societal stereotypes. For example, women and minorities are often not given the same opportunities for development, training and advancement as their white male counterparts. They may also be passed over for promotions in favor of less-qualified candidates who fit the traditional mold of a leader.

Research has shown that the glass ceiling is not unique to women but also affects minorities, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals and people with disabilities. The glass ceiling effect can also be more prevalent in certain industries, such as finance and technology, and in certain positions, such as those in senior management.  Furthermore, the glass ceiling effect can also occur at the entry level of an organization, when qualified individuals from underrepresented groups are not given the same opportunities for entry-level positions.

Both the sticky floor and glass ceiling phenomenon are often more pronounced for women from underrepresented groups, such as women of color, immigrant women, and women with disabilities, who face additional barriers in the workforce, making their path to promotion and career development harder.

There are many examples of women who have faced discrimination and bias in their careers, which has prevented them from advancing to leadership positions or high-profile roles. For example, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina, had to face discrimination and bias when she was appointed as CEO in 1999, and had to fight to be taken seriously in a male-dominated field. Another example is Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, has written extensively about the barriers that women face in the workplace, including the glass ceiling and the sticky floor.

On the other hand, many women have shared their experiences of facing discrimination and bias in entry-level and support roles, which has limited their opportunities for advancement and made it difficult for them to move up the career ladder. For instance, a study conducted by the National Women's Law Center found that women in retail jobs are paid less than men and are less likely to be promoted to management positions. Similarly, a study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research found that women in healthcare support roles are paid less than men and face significant barriers to advancement.

Men, on the other hand, often benefit from non-gender-conforming employment due to the glass escalator.  The term "glass escalator" (see Maume, 1999) refers to the phenomenon where men who work in traditionally female-dominated occupations, such as teaching or nursing, are more likely to be promoted to higher-level positions than women who work in the same field. This is in contrast to the "glass ceiling" which refers to the invisible barrier that prevents women from advancing to top leadership positions.

The glass escalator effect suggests that men who work in female-dominated fields receive a boost in their careers due to their gender and are more likely to be promoted to management positions and are often paid more than their female colleagues. This is also known as the "gender promotion bias" and it's thought to occur due to the fact that men in these fields are seen as "exceptional" and therefore more likely to be promoted.

Research has shown that men in female-dominated fields often receive more mentoring and networking opportunities than their female colleagues and are also more likely to be seen as leaders and role models. This can lead to a higher rate of promotion and career advancement for men, while women may experience discrimination and bias that limits their opportunities for advancement.

The glass escalator effect is not limited to male teachers and nurses and could happen in any field where men are underrepresented or where the stereotype of a specific job is associated with a specific gender, and where men are benefitted by this perception.

The "impostor syndrome" (see Feenstra, Begeny, Ryan, Rink, Stoker, & Jordan, 2020) is a phenomenon where individuals, often women and minorities, doubt their abilities and accomplishments and feel as if they are frauds in the workplace. This can lead to feelings of insecurity, self-doubt, and under-confidence, which can affect their job performance and advancement opportunities.

People experiencing imposter syndrome often fear being discovered as a fraud, despite evidence of their competence. They may attribute their successes to luck or external factors, rather than their own abilities, and may feel constant pressure to prove themselves. They may also experience a lack of self-esteem, avoid new challenges, or not take credit for their achievements.

Research suggests that individuals who experience imposter syndrome may be more likely to experience anxiety, depression and burnout. Furthermore, it can also lead to underperforming or avoiding taking on new responsibilities and opportunities, which can negatively impact their career advancement.

Imposter syndrome is not unique to women and can affect anyone regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation or background. However, it is generally more prevalent among individuals from underrepresented groups and those who are breaking into new fields or taking on new roles.  Fortunately, imposter syndrome is not a diagnosed condition and it is not a permanent state, but rather a set of feelings and experiences that can change over time. It can be overcome by developing a growth mindset, learning to reframe negative thoughts, and seeking feedback and support from others.

"Photo Of Woman Wearing Eyeglasses" by fauxels is in the Public Domain, CC0

There are several differences in leadership styles and behaviors that are often associated with gender (Hoyt, Simon, & Reid, 2009). For example, studies have shown that women tend to be more collaborative and participatory in their leadership style, while men are more likely to be autocratic and directive. Women also tend to be more nurturing and empathetic leaders, while men are more likely to be competitive and results-oriented. Additionally, women tend to be more risk-averse than men and may be less likely to take bold or aggressive actions as leaders.

Research has shown that there are some differences in leadership styles and behaviors that are often associated with gender (ElKhouly, Sedfy, & Marwan, 2014). However, it is important to note that these are generalizations and not all individuals will fit into these stereotypes (Boyer et al., 2022).  Furthermore, as society and culture changes, these differences might also change over time.

Some of the differences that have been observed include:

• Women tend to be more collaborative and participatory in their leadership style, while men are more likely to be autocratic and directive.
• Women also tend to be more nurturing and empathetic leaders, while men are more likely to be competitive and results-oriented.
• Women tend to be more risk-averse than men and may be less likely to take bold or aggressive actions as leaders.
• Men are more likely to be assertive, confident, and comfortable with taking charge, while women are more likely to be nurturing, supportive and tend to be more relationship-oriented.

It is also worth noting that these differences may not always be negative and can sometimes be an advantage depending on the situation. For example, a collaborative leadership style may be more effective in a team-based work environment, while a more directive style may be more effective in a crisis situation.  Additionally, research has shown that when women hold leadership positions, they tend to improve the overall performance of the group, and organizations with more women in leadership roles tend to be more profitable and innovative.

Research has also shown that men and women may differ in terms of risk-taking, with men being more likely to take risks than women. Studies have shown that men tend to have a higher tolerance for risk and are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as gambling, investing, and driving aggressively.

There are several potential explanations for these differences in risk-taking behavior. One theory is that it is related to differences in hormones, specifically testosterone, which is associated with increased risk-taking behavior. Socialization and cultural factors also play a role, as men are often socialized to be assertive and competitive, while women are often socialized to be more cautious and nurturing. 

Additionally, studies have shown that women may be more likely to consider the potential negative consequences of a risky decision, while men may be more focused on the potential rewards.  Finally, other studies have also found that women tend to take more risks in domains where they are more confident, and have more experience, and that women managers are more likely to take risks than men managers.

Differences in communication styles between men and women may help to explain some of the differences in leadership styles that have been observed, with these differences being related to the different socialization and cultural expectations that men and women face.

Research has shown that men are often socialized to be assertive and competitive, while women are often socialized to be more nurturing and supportive.  As a result, men tend to use more assertive and directive language, while women tend to use more collaborative and inclusive language. Men may be more likely to use language that conveys confidence and authority, such as making statements and giving commands, while women may be more likely to use language that seeks input, builds consensus, and fosters cooperation, such as asking questions, making suggestions, and expressing empathy.  In other words, men may be more likely to adopt a leadership style that is more directive and results-oriented, while women may be more likely to adopt a leadership style that is more collaborative and participatory.

Transformational and transactional leadership are two different styles of leadership that have been identified by researchers.  Women tend to be more transformational leaders, focusing on inspiring and mentoring their followers, while men tend to be more transactional, focusing on achieving specific goals and objectives.  

According to Berdecia-Cruz, Flecha, and Ortiz (2022), a transformational leader is someone who inspires and motivates followers to not only meet but exceed their own expectations. They focus on developing their followers' potential and creating a sense of shared purpose and values. They lead by example, they are visionary and they are able to create a sense of trust, empowerment and commitment among their followers. They tend to be more visionary and innovative and they focus on the long-term goals of the organization.

A transactional leader, on the other hand, is more focused on maintaining the status quo and achieving specific goals and objectives. They rely on a system of rewards and punishments to motivate their followers and tend to be more focused on the short-term goals of the organization. They use a more authoritative style of leadership and may be more interested in maintaining control and order rather than inspiring and motivating followers to reach their full potential.

Both leadership styles can be effective in different situations, and an effective leader may be able to use both styles depending on the context. Transformational leadership may be more effective in situations that require innovation and creativity, while transactional leadership may be more effective in situations that require stability and efficiency. Furthermore, both styles can be adopted by any individual regardless of their gender, and it is not limited to only one or the other.

Women may be more likely to prioritize the well-being and development of their employees, while men may be more focused on achieving organizational goals.   This is because women tend to have a more people-oriented approach to leadership and may be more focused on the emotional and personal needs of their employees. They may be more likely to provide emotional support and mentoring to their employees and may be more sensitive to issues such as work-life balance and employee well-being.

Additionally, women may be more likely to adopt a more democratic leadership style, that is based on consultation and participation, which may foster a culture of trust and open communication. This may lead to a more inclusive and supportive work environment, where employees feel valued and motivated.

Furthermore, research has shown that women are more likely to create an inclusive work environment, which may lead to better diversity and innovation. This may be due to women's tendency to be more collaborative, which can promote inclusivity and lead to better decision-making.

Conversely, men tend to be more assertive, confident, and comfortable with taking charge, while women tend to be more nurturing, supportive, and tend to be more relationship-oriented.  Whereas women may be more likely to adopt a more democratic leadership style that is based on consultation and participation, men tend to adopt a more autocratic style, based on top-down decision making.

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, has spoken extensively about the barriers that women face in the workplace, particularly in terms of discrimination and bias.  In her book "Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead," Sandberg examines the ways in which societal and cultural factors can limit women's advancement in the workplace and provides practical advice for women on how to overcome these barriers. She also shares her own experiences of facing discrimination and bias in her career.

Sandberg discusses how women are often held to different standards than men in the workplace and how they are less likely to be promoted or considered for top leadership positions due to unconscious biases and perceptions that women are less capable or less committed than men. She also talks about the "double bind" that women face, where they are criticized if they are too aggressive or assertive, but also criticized if they are too passive or not assertive enough.

She also highlights the importance of mentorship and sponsorship in helping women to overcome these barriers and to succeed in their careers. Sandberg encourages women to "lean in" to their careers and to be more assertive and confident in their ambitions and capabilities.

In addition, Sandberg also speaks about the importance of creating a more inclusive and supportive workplace, where women and other marginalized groups are given equal opportunities to advance, and where unconscious biases are recognized and addressed.

Overall, Sandberg has been an advocate for women's rights and equality, and her book and speeches have helped to bring attention to the barriers that women face in the workplace and the steps that can be taken to overcome them.

Sandberg is just one example, but there are many more women who have spoken out about their experiences and the importance of creating a more inclusive and equal workplace for women.   Others include:

• Marissa Mayer, former CEO of Yahoo, has spoken about the challenges she faced as a woman in the tech industry and the biases she encountered as a female leader.
• Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, has written about the importance of women's leadership and the barriers that women face in the workplace.
• Oprah Winfrey, media mogul and philanthropist, has spoken about the challenges she faced as a woman of color in the media industry and the discrimination she encountered as she rose to the top of her field.
• Ursula von der Leyen, first female President of the European Commission, has spoken about the challenges of being the first woman in her role and the importance of creating more opportunities for women in leadership positions.
• Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has spoken about the barriers that women face in the workplace and the importance of creating more opportunities for women to succeed in their careers.

Abdel-Raouf, F., & Buhler, P. M. (2020). The gender pay gap: Understanding the numbers (1 Edition.). Routledge.

Antai, A. S., & Anam, B. (2016). Gender Disparity in Education, Employment and Access to Productive Resources as Deterrent to Economic Development. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 6(3), 59–74.

Barreto, M. C., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. T. (2009). The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt, Eds.; First edition.). American Psychological Association.

Berdecia-Cruz, Z., Flecha, J. A., & Ortiz, M. (2022). The gender differences in innovative mentality, leadership styles and organizational innovative behavior:  The case the “40 Under 40” and their impact on organizational success. European Business Review, 34(3), 411–430. 

Booth, A. L., Francesconi, M., & Frank, J. (2003). A sticky floors model of promotion, pay, and gender. European Economic Review, 47(2), 295–322.

Boyer, E.J., Reid, R., Studies, G. et al. (2022).   Does gender influence leadership styles? A view from the U.S. nonprofit sector. Public Organization Review.   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00669-y

Budig, M.J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 204–225.

ElKhouly, S. E., Sedfy, H. E., & Marwan, R. (2014). Gender and leadership styles:  The impact on organizational culture and employee empowerment. Competition Forum, 12(1), 141–151.

Feenstra, S., Begeny, C., Ryan, M., Rink, F., Stoker, J. I., & Jordan, J. (2020). Contextualizing the Impostor “Syndrome.” Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-6.

Fennema, E., & Leder, G. C. (1990). Mathematics and gender. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Fernandes, A.P., & Ferreira, P. (2021). Executives’ gender pay gap and financing constraints. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 192, 381–404.

Gasteen, A. (2019). Gender and STEM subject choice. International Journal of Population Data Science, 4(3), 164.

Hatch, J. K. (1994).  Subtle lessons:  Boys and girls treated differently in classrooms.  Deseret News.  Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.deseret.com/1994/7/31/19122842/.

Hoyt, C. L., Simon, S., & Reid, L. (2009). Choosing the best (wo)man for the job: The effects of mortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 233–246.

Inzlicht, M. & Schmader, T. (2012). Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application. Oxford University Press.

Irby, B. J., & Brown, G. (2011). Gender and early learning environments. Information Age Pub.

Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K.  (2004).  A meta-analytic perspective on sex equity in the classroom.  Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 443-471.

Lopez, N. (2003). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Race and gender disparity in urban education. Routledge.

Maume, D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions. Work and Occupations, 26(4), 483–509.

Morando, G. (2021). Peer gender and STEM specialization. Applied Economics Letters, 28(12), 1041–1045.

National Center for Education Statistics.  (2022).  Postbaccalaureate enrollment.  Condition of education.  U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.  Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/chb.

Nazir, H. S., & Mahmood, A. (2021). Organizational commitment of secondary school teachers: A comparative analysis of gender, age, rural and urban schools. Journal of Educational Research, 24(1), 54–66.

Rose, J., Hewitt, B., & Baxter, J. (2013). Women and part-time employment: Easing or squeezing time pressure? Journal of Sociology (Melbourne, Vic.), 49(1), 41–59.

Sanders, K., Willemsen, T. M., & Millar, C. C. J. M. (2009). Views from above the glass ceiling: Does the academic environment influence women professors’ careers and experiences? Sex Roles, 60(5-6), 301–312.

Shah, S. M. H, Hussain, K.S., & Sultana, N. (2011). Critical analysis of gender disparities in education in Pakistan. Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 116-134.

Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D.  (2014).   Gender differences in scholastic treatment:  A meta-analysis.  Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174-1204.