Gender inequities in the workplace: A holistic review of organizational processes and practices

In this paper, we provide a broad, integrative review of the degree to which gender inequities exist in organizational domains and practices covering areas such as performance evaluation, compensation, leadership, work-family conflict, and sexual harassment, spanning the employee lifecycle from selection to exiting the organization. Where the literature allows, we review intersectionality findings. We also review the factors and processes that facilitate and hinder gender equity in the workplace, by drawing on the most robust empirical evidence. Throughout the paper, we distinguish between findings that allow us to infer gender inequity versus gender equality. Consolidating these disparate literatures allows us to develop a model that explains how gender inequities cumulate across the employee lifecycle and are reinforced across multiple levels (i.e., societal, organizational, interpersonal, and individual). We also identify important gaps in the literature, suggest next steps for research and highlight practical implications for organiza- tions aiming to advance gender equity.

Despite having made great strides, women in North America continue to fare worse than men along many important dimensions of their work experiences. For instance, although women make up 47% of employees in the United States, they comprise only 27.6% of chief executive officers (U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2020). Among Canadian full-time workers, women earn only $0.87 for every dollar men earn (Pelletier, Patterson, & Moyser, 2019) with the wage gap higher among racialized women (Block, Galabuzi, & Tranjan, 2019). Twice the number of American women (42%) say they have experienced gender discrimination at work, compared with men (Parker & Funk, 2017), and in Canada, women comprise 94% of reported sexual harassment victims (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2017). When Canadian workers are asked about their experiences of discrimination in the workplace over the last year, more reported experiencing discrimination on the basis of sex (27.3%) versus race (16.1%) or disability (7.0%; Nangia & Arora, 2021). Thus, large gaps remain between women’s and men’s status, outcomes, and treatment within the workplace. These experiences are consequential, as they negatively affect women’s mental health, job satisfaction (Sojo, Wood, & Genat, 2016), psy- chological withdrawal (Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, & Drasgow, 1999), employee performance (Leskinen, Cortina, & Kabat, 2011), as well as firm performance (Hoobler, Masterson, Nkomo, & Michel, 2016).

To understand such gender differences, we draw upon the distinction between the distributive justice principles of inequality and inequity (Deutsch, 1975). Gender inequalities refer to absolute differences in the treatment and outcomes for men versus women (e.g., Human Resource Management Review 33 (2023) 100968 2the % of CEOS that are men vs. women), that may or may not be deserved.1 Gender inequities specifically refer to differences in the treatment and outcomes for men versus women that are undeserved given their merits or contributions to the organization (e.g., the preference to promote a man over a woman to the position of CEO when he is less qualified). Gender inequities can occur in multiple organizational domains and practices: from resume screening to performance evaluations to sexual harassment to layoffs. Gender inequities may stem from: explicit or implicit biases of organizational decision makers, as well as systemic/structural/institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices. Gender inequities may be unintentional or deliberate and subtle or blatant in form. Importantly, gender inequity extends beyond discrimination, which entails differential treatment on the basis of group status that results in worse outcomes or treatment at work (Civil Rights Act, 1964; Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC, 1985; United Nations’ International Labor Organization, 2015). This is because, due to their differential experiences outside of work, treating all genders the same and even ambient stimuli in the workplace can create gender inequities at work.

Whereas others have focused on gender differences pertaining to gender inequalities (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015), in this paper, we aim to review evidence pertaining to gender inequities in the workplace and focus our discussion on how gender equity can be promoted within the workplace for two reasons. First, a focus on eliminating gender inequity will have positive consequences for the organi- zation, as it will focus efforts on creating human resources (HR) policies and practices that are validated, consistent, and merit based, thereby increasing employee performance (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Second, in Canadian and American workplaces, a strong preference is given to distribute outcomes (e.g., pay) on the basis of equity rather than equality (Hegtvedt, 1987; Miller & Komorita, 1995). Thus, when organizational efforts to advance the status of women are seen as equity violating, they are deemed reverse discrimination, met with backlash, and can produce unintended negative consequences for women (e.g., Bobocel, Son Hing, Davey, Stanley, & Zanna, 1998; Caleo & Heilman, 2019; Dover, Kaiser, & Major, 2019; Leslie, Mayer, & Kravitz, 2014). Therefore, to be effective, strategies to promote women’s representation and status in the workplace must be seen as equitable. Both issues point to the organizational importance of understanding the prevalence of gender inequities, the processes that generate them, and how to best mitigate them. In our Discussion section (Section 9), we consider how an accumulation of gender inequities can negatively affect the apparent qualifications of women and its consequences for conceptualizing merit.