Abstract
Purpose
Current events such as the #metoo and #timesup movements have ushered in an era of heightened awareness of sexist organizational climate. Increasingly, supporters have called for top-down changes, demanding that organizations embrace a culture of accountability. Accordingly, the current study proposed and investigated the concept of benevolently sexist organizational climate and explored the impact on women's state self-esteem, while testing for the potential moderating effects of power and gender.
Design/methodology/approach
The current experimental study utilized a video video-based manipulation to introduce benevolently sexist organizational climate with a 2 (content of communication) x 2 (gender of communicator) x 2 (status of communicator) between-subjects design. The hypotheses were tested using an analysis of variance moderation model, based on a sample of 652 women.
Findings
Results indicated a significant two-way interaction between benevolently sexist organizational climate and power on self-esteem. Specifically, results suggested that benevolently sexist organizational climates have a greater negative impact on women's self-esteem when a supervisor communicates the information on the climate as opposed to a coworker.
Practical implications
Benevolently sexist climate had a deleterious impact on women's organizational outcomes especially when communicated by a supervisor. These findings can be used for guidance on the development of training and interventions targeted at mitigating the prevalence of benevolently sexist workplace climate.
Originality/value
This study was the first to propose the concept of a benevolently sexist organizational climate. Additionally, the study demonstrated the negative impact of a benevolently sexist organizational climate on women's state self-esteem providing important implications for organizations. Further theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Keywords
Citation
Warren, C., Wax, A., Galvez, G., Van Geffen, K.-A. and Zernick, M.V. (2023), "The impact of a benevolently sexist organizational climate on individual self-esteem: an exploration of the moderating impact of dyadic communication", Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 477-500. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-01-2022-0005
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited
The recent #metoo and #timesup movements ushered in an era of increased awareness of sexist organizational climate. Collectively, supporters of the movement have called for top-down changes, demanding that organizations embrace a culture of accountability (Choo et al., 2019), and these demands resulted in actionable responses from organizations worldwide. For example, until recent policy changes, one of the largest accounting firms in the world (i.e. PricewaterhouseCoopers) required female employees to wear makeup and high heels (Bilefsky, 2017). Similarly, Virgin Atlantic, in recent years, ended its longtime requirement for female cabin crew to wear makeup and heels on duty (Yeginsu, 2019). Internationally, there have been notable efforts to address sexist organizational climates, such as the #kutoo movement in Japan. The Japanese movement is raising awareness of sexism in the workplace and is pushing for more equal footwear requirements in organizations that require women to wear heels at work (Chen, 2019).
Central to these examples is the concept of gender inequality through organizational norms and practices that serve to uphold stereotypes that restrict women to traditionally-feminine roles in the workplace. These examples also reflect a concept known as benevolent sexism, or “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically in restricted roles but that is subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviors typically categorized as prosocial …” (Glick and Fiske, 1996, p. 491). Research indicates that endorsement of benevolently sexist beliefs is associated with gender inequality and negative behaviors and attitudes towards women in both personal and professional contexts (Lee et al., 2010) However, sexism is a systemic, multilevel phenomenon ingrained at all levels of society (Warren et al., 2022). Accordingly, researchers have made broader calls for future researchers to stop addressing systemic issues at the individual level with regard to issues, such as women's career advancement, organizational practices and team dynamics (Joshi et al., 2015, p. 1470).
Accordingly, the current study seeks to propose a new concept—namely, benevolently sexist organizational climate, which is defined as policies or practices (as well as the meaning derived from such practices and policies) that portray women in a superficial light, aimed to protect and romanticize women and take advantage of women's stereotypical, traditionally-feminine skill sets. For example, women may be assigned to stereotypically feminine roles, regardless of their strengths, due to benevolently sexist selection practices. Another example is organizational requirements designed to restrict women to stereotypically feminine appearances, especially if these requirements hinder functionality to optimally perform their jobs (e.g. the requirement to wear heels). Ultimately, these examples of benevolently sexist organizational climates restrict women in the workplace and impact their developmental opportunities and career trajectories.
In support of the concept of benevolently sexist organizational climate, findings from prior research have shown that sexism manifests at the organizational level (e.g. Manuel et al., 2017; Rubin et al., 2019; Stamarski and Son Hing, 2015). For instance, research has demonstrated that organizational culture concerning sex- and gender-based discrimination negatively impacts women on a wide variety of organizational outcomes, such as the number of women in management roles (Bajdo and Dickson, 2001), the degree to which women stereotyped one another (Derks et al., 2011) and the prevalence and acceptability of sexist humor (Boxer and Ford, 2001). In addition, the literature has noted that sexist organizational cultures can be challenging to manipulate (Lewis, 1997), as they are often based on informal, unwritten norms (Dellinger, 2002). Despite evidence that sexism manifests at all levels of society, organizational research on benevolent sexism, specifically, has primarily focused on individual-level and dyadic interactions including sexist employees (Dardenne et al., 2007), interviewers (Good and Rudman, 2010), coworkers (Moya et al., 2007) and supervisors (King et al., 2012).
While women report frequent benevolently sexist experiences in their personal and professional lives (Oswald et al., 2019), there has been virtually no previous research on the impact of benevolent sexism on women's self-esteem (i.e. positive and/or negative attitudes toward oneself, Rosenberg et al., 1995) in the workplace. With calls for additional research on the benevolent sexism and self-esteem relationship (Oswald et al., 2019), it is important to investigate the context in which a benevolently sexist organizational climate has an impact on self-esteem. For instance, the power status of the speaker communicating the organizational policies and practices, referred to as source power, could impact self-esteem. Additionally, previous research has found that the speaker's gender, referred to as source gender, influences women's attitudes (Altemeyer and Jones, 1974; Lockheed, 1985).
Therefore, this study aims to make three primary contributions. First, this study aimed to propose and test a new concept, benevolently sexist organizational climate. Accordingly, this study expands on previous literature by extending the methods by which benevolent sexism can manifest in the workplace and impact women. Second, this study sought to explore the potential multilevel impact of a benevolently sexist organizational climate (an organizational-level phenomenon) on women's self-esteem (an individual-level phenomenon). Third, the current study sought to explore the context of benevolently sexist organizational climate on women's self-esteem by examining potential multilevel moderating effects of source power and source gender (dyadic-level phenomenon).
Foundational theories
Gender role theory
Bem (1974) theorized about gender role perceptions and posited that men and women display a range of masculine and feminine characteristics, with androgyny being high on both dimensions, which constitute the gender perception of the individual. Subsequently, Eagly and Karau (2003) proposed role congruity theory which argued that women may experience prejudice and discrimination when deviating from these stereotypical feminine characteristics and roles in the workplace. These theories provide a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms that reinforce gender differences in the workplace and are used as a foundation for the theoretical development of benevolently sexist organizational climate.
Social dominance theory
Social dominance theory suggests that social systems are organized around and maintain the power of privileged groups (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). With regard to the workplace, social dominance theory suggests that the workplace is organized to support the hierarchy and power of men, resulting in the oppression of women. To test this assertion, Ghavami and Peplau (2012) tested hypotheses concerning social hierarchies regarding gender and ethnicity in the workplace, demonstrating that social hierarchies exist and support the social inequalities of women and ethnic minorities. Ultimately, these theories suggest that the workplace is a social system that restricts women while upholding the privilege of White men.
Benevolent sexism
Ambivalent sexism theory, proposed by Glick and Fiske (1996), states sexism has two related complementary dimensions: hostile and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism represents an overtly negative, aggressive form of sexism (Allport, 1954). In contrast, benevolent sexism represents women in a seemingly positive aspect that, in reality, reinforces a restricted and stereotypical view of women (Glick and Fiske, 2001). In other words, those who endorse a benevolently sexist ideology may love and adore the women in their lives, but maintain the view of men as the strong, competent providers for women who are innately weaker, nurturing, domestically oriented and fundamentally dependent on men.
Benevolent sexism in the workplace
In the context of the workplace, research on benevolent sexism has indicated a particularly destructive patterning of outcomes (Warren et al., 2023). Specifically, exposure to benevolent sexism directly impacts women's thoughts, feelings, behaviors and performance at work. For instance, benevolent sexism has been demonstrated to increase women's anxiety in the workplace (Pacilli et al., 2019) and makes women more likely to emphasize their relational characteristics and deemphasize their task-relevant characteristics (Barreto et al., 2009). Additionally, benevolent sexism has a direct, negative impact on women's cognitive performance with a magnitude that surpasses hostile sexism (Dardenne et al., 2007).
Benevolent sexism and self-esteem
Self-esteem is defined as “the individual's positive or negative attitude toward the self” (Rosenberg et al., 1995, p. 141). Based on affective events theory (AET; Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996), communications of benevolently sexist policies and practices could be considered as a form of an affective event. Specifically, AET provides support for individuals perceiving communications of benevolently sexist organizational climate as an affective event, which will ultimately have an impact on women's emotional experiences and outcomes at work. Therefore, based on previous research and theory, there is a clear link between benevolently sexist organizational climate and impacts on women's self-esteem.
Outside of organizational literature, benevolent sexism has been widely studied in relation to self-esteem; the results of which have indicated that exposure to benevolent sexism causes women to feel incompetent (Dumont et al., 2010) and that women tend to underestimate the negative impact that benevolent sexism has on their affective states (Bosson et al., 2010). Specifically, benevolent sexism has a powerful impact on women's body attitudes. On the (seemingly) positive side of things, exposure to benevolent sexism has been shown to enhance appearance-based self-esteem in women for normative standards of feminine beauty (Bradley-Geist et al., 2015). These results suggest that benevolent sexism creates a stereotypical and restrictive environment that values traditional feminine norms.
In the specific context of the workplace, research on the relation between benevolent sexism and self-esteem has been understudied. Results from one study indicated that benevolent sexism decreases self-esteem among women in a work context (Dardenne et al., 2007). Results from another study suggested that exposure to benevolent sexism causes women to have less optimistic outlooks on their own leadership potential, although this may only be true for women who don't strongly self-identify with other women (Fedi and Rollero, 2016). Although these studies laid an essential foundation for the impact of benevolent sexism on self-esteem, the impact of a benevolently sexist organizational climate has yet to be explored.
Sexist organizational climate
Although researchers have made great progress in the investigation of general conceptualizations of sexism at the organizational level, they have yet to explore the impacts of benevolent sexism at the organizational level (e.g. Boxer and Ford, 2001; Stamarski and Son Hing, 2015). However, previous research has suggested that sexist organizational practices and features can negatively impact women's career development and trajectory (Ellemers, 2014). Additionally, other similar areas of scholarship, such as research on experiences of LGBT employees, have indicated the organization level is possibly the most important to take into consideration for individual-level outcomes (e.g. Wax et al., 2018; see Figure 1 for a theoretical model demonstrating where sexism could reside at various levels).
Decades of research have pointed to the conclusion that organizational climate has the potential to impact individual self-esteem (e.g. Pierce and Gardner, 2004). Furthermore, it appears that how an organization's climate and cultural norms are communicated to organization members matters in terms of individual-level outcomes (e.g. Gundry and Rousseau, 1994). Accordingly, two potential moderating variables of interest are the relative level of power the source of the communication possesses, as well as the gender of the source of the communication (see Figure 2 for theoretical model).
Source power as a moderator
One important variable to consider when assessing the impact communication will have on a target is the social power/prestige of the source. Ample evidence suggests that source power impacts the persuasiveness of a communication. For instance, researchers have established that the expertise of a source positively predicts how persuasive the message seems to the target (Wilson and Sherrell, 1993). In an organizational setting, “[p]ower is seen as resulting from access to and control over persons, information and instrumentalities” (Mechanic, 1962, p. 349). For example, managers have been shown to have more power over their subordinates than they do over their peers (Tse et al., 2013; Wee and Taylor, 2018).
Research testing leader–member exchange (LMX) theory indicated that high-quality relationships between supervisors and subordinates lead to a variety of desired work-related outcomes (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Golden and Veiga, 2008). Furthermore, perceptions of supervisory power were exhibited to impact subordinate self-esteem (Fedor et al., 2001). Finally, although employees speak more frequently with peers, research has indicated that conversations with supervisors are a stronger driver of perceptions of organizational support (Neves and Eisenberger, 2012).
Although limited research indicates that source power will moderate the relation between benevolently sexist climate communications and self-esteem, there is an abundance of evidence suggesting that supervisors exert a uniquely powerful influence over their subordinates (e.g. Fedor et al., 2001). Furthermore, limited evidence suggests that benevolent sexism has a more deleterious impact when it comes from a source who is perceived as powerful. For example, benevolent sexism at work is more damaging to women when it is expressed by someone with whom the target expects to have an ongoing collaborative relationship (Barreto et al., 2009).
Source power will moderate the relation between benevolently sexist organizational climate and self-esteem, such that benevolently sexist organizational climate communicated by a supervisor will have a greater negative impact on state self-esteem than when communicated by a coworker.
Source gender as a moderator
The gender of the source of communication has demonstrated to impact the way communication is received, and meta-analytic evidence suggested male sources categorically exert more social influence and authority than female sources (Lockheed, 1985; Heilman and Parks-Stamm, 2007). Specifically, male sources are more likely than female sources to be perceived as having correct solutions to a problem resulting in the acceptance by targets at a disproportionate rate (Altemeyer and Jones, 1974). Further evidence demonstrated that male sources' communicating information are more likely to be factored into a group decision-making process (Propp, 1995).
Men exerting more social influence than women extend to the context of the workplace. For instance, women are perceived as less effective and less fair than men when administering workplace discipline (Atwater et al., 2001). Although benevolently sexist organizational climate has yet to be explored through the lens of source gender, the impact on women may mirror that of previous findings that male sources may have a greater impact than female sources. Source gender has also been shown to impact how benevolently sexist communications are received by targets. Specifically, research demonstrated targets are more likely to agree with benevolently sexist communication when the source is speaking about the opposite gender in a benevolently sexist way, as opposed to the same gender (Davidson et al., 2015).
Source gender will moderate the relation between benevolently sexist organizational climate and self-esteem, such that benevolently sexist organizational climate communicated by a man will have a greater negative impact on state self-esteem than when communicated by a woman.
Three-way interactive effects
Furthermore, we anticipate the presence of a three-way interaction. More specifically, the interactive effect of benevolent sexism, source power and source gender on self-esteem. Although there is little prior support in the extant scholarly literature, there are a few compelling pieces of evidence to suggest that this interaction may occur.
For instance, women working for male managers are more likely to (i.e. compared to female managers) perceive less organizational support (Konrad et al., 2010); therefore, it may be likely that a male supervisor may have a greater negative impact on women when communicating benevolently sexist organizational climate. In other words, since women already perceive less organizational support from male managers, a male manager may have a greater impact on women when communicating in a sexist climate. On the other hand, research has found that ingroup similarity has a strong impact on workplace outcomes. For example, the demographic similarity between the supervisor and subordinate was correlated with higher job satisfaction (Turban and Jones, 1988). With the influence that men have in social settings combined with the influence associated with formal power (e.g. manager), a male manager may have greater impact than either one alone.
Source power and source gender will have an interactive effect on the relation between benevolently sexist organizational climate and self-esteem, such that benevolently sexist organizational climate communicated by a male supervisor will have the greatest negative impact on state self-esteem.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from a public university in Southern California and compensated by research participation credit. Aligned with prior research, we utilized a female sample to investigate the benevolent sexism and self-esteem relationship (e.g. Dardenne et al., 2007; Fedi and Rollero, 2016). In total, 695 female-identifying participants completed the study. However, data from 43 participants were removed for failing attention checks (n = 10), incomplete survey responses (n = 7), being shown the incorrect randomly assigned video manipulation (n = 4), participating twice (n = 9), or disregarding the rules of the lab session (n = 13). The final sample included N = 652 (see Table 1). The average age of participants was 18.83 years 298 (45.7%) participants identified as Hispanic/Latinx, 139 (21.3%) identified as Asian, 91 (14.0%) identified as multiracial, 86 (13.2%) identified as White, and 38 (5.8%) identified as another race or chose not to self-report.
Procedure
The study employed a 2 (content of communication: benevolently sexist vs neutral) x 2 (source gender: male vs female) x 2 (source power: supervisor vs coworker) between-subjects design. Part 1 of the study was an online survey that included demographic items. Subsequently, participants signed up for part 2, the in-lab component, where they were shown a video explaining they would be engaging in a role-playing activity where they were employees of a fictitious organization, which was undergoing a merger. Due to the merger, the company was adopting a new set of organizational goals and policies. The video then summarized these goals and policies individually. Overall, six organizational policies were introduced to the participants. See Appendix 1 for the statements presented to the participants. They were then redirected to an online survey that assessed self-esteem, attention check and manipulation items.
Measures
All survey measures were administered electronically via Qualtrics (2019).
Self-esteem
Self-esteem was measured using Heatherton and Polivy's (1991) 20-item State Self-Esteem Scale (α = 0.90). An example item includes “Right now, I am confident in my capacity.” Response options utilized a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (Extremely).
Gender identification
The level of participants' masculine and feminine gender identity was measured by the 24-item Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Well et al., 2007; feminine subscale α = 0.71 and masculine subscale α = 0.58). Example masculine attributes included dominant, aggressive and independent. Example feminine attributes included gentle, helpful and kind. Responses options utilized a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (Very).
Demographics
Demographics were collected during part 1 of the study including gender, age, race/ethnicity and year in school.
Attention checks
The post-manipulation survey included six attention check items. An example attention check item was “For this question, select ‘Extremely’ as your response.”
Manipulation checks
Manipulation checks were included for the source power (i.e. supervisor or coworker) and source gender (i.e. male or female). Additionally, rated on a 5-point Likert ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree, participants were asked to rate the sexism of the communicator.
Results
Manipulation checks
Participants in the supervisor condition were more likely to report being in the supervisor condition (M = 1.11, SD = 0.31) compared to the coworker condition (M = 1.70, SD = 0.46), t(650) = −18.81, p < 0.001. Second, participants in the male communicator condition were more likely to report having a male communicator (M = 1.11, SD = 0.31) than in the female condition (M = 1.81, SD = 0.40), t(649) = −24.90, p < 0.001. Third, participants in the benevolently sexist condition (M = 3.46, SD = 1.15) were more likely than the participants in the neutral condition (M = 2.30, SD = 0.93) to rate the source as sexist, t(651) = −14.16, p < 0.001.
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics and a power analysis were conducted and analyzed prior to hypothesis testing (please see Table 2 for descriptive statistics).
Hypothesis testing
To test Hypotheses 1 through 3, an ANOVA was conducted (see Table 3). SPSS (IBM, 2017) was used to run all analyses. Results for Hypothesis 1 indicated a significant interactive effect of benevolent sexism and source power on self-esteem, F(1, 644) = 5.49, p = 0.019, partial η2 = 0.01. As visible in Figure 3, this interaction functioned such that individuals in the benevolent sexism condition had higher self-esteem when being spoken to by a coworker, and lower self-esteem when being spoken to by a supervisor, while the opposite was true for participants in the neutral condition. Accordingly, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Results for Hypothesis 2 indicated that an interactive effect of benevolent sexism and source gender on self-esteem was not significant, F(1, 644) = 2.43, p = 0.119. Additionally, results for Hypothesis 3 indicated that the interactive effect of benevolent sexism, source power and source gender on self-esteem was not significant, F(1, 644) = 0.38, p = 0.538. Therefore, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were not supported.
Exploratory analyses
In addition to our primary analyses addressing our hypotheses, we conducted two exploratory analyses. Specifically, we conducted an analysis exploring the potential impact of gender differences in our model (see Appendix 2). Overall, the analyses determined that gender identity, operationalized by reported gender (i.e. male and female) and gendered attributes (i.e. masculine or feminine), did not impact the original findings. Furthermore, we explored the potential for intersectional differences in our model (see Appendix 3). The findings indicated that women were impacted differently by benevolently sexist organizational climate based on their ethnicity.
Discussion
The current study sought to explore benevolent sexism in the workplace from a multilevel perspective. Specifically, it explored the impact that benevolently sexist organizational climate has on self-esteem, while also assessing the potential moderating impact that dyadic communication exchanges have on the relationship between climate and outcomes.
Summary of results
Results of the current study supported the notion that the relationship between benevolently sexist climate and self-esteem is moderated by source power; overall, individuals experienced the lowest levels of self-esteem subsequent to hearing a supervisor communicate benevolently sexist content. Theoretically, this may occur because people with more power exert a special influence over their subordinates (e.g. Fedor et al., 2001). It is interesting to note that, for participants in the control condition, communications stemming from supervisors boosted self-esteem more than communications stemming from coworkers. This patterning of results complements that of the benevolently sexist condition; while supervisors who communicate benevolently sexist climate have the potential to diminish self-esteem, supervisors communicating a neutral climate have the corresponding ability to enhance self-esteem.
However, results did not support source gender as a moderator or the three-way interaction. While the results indicated that the relative status of the source of the communication mattered, the gender of that source did not. This finding could be explained by the strength of the manipulation. That is, the participants heard a gendered voice but did not see a person talking; if there had been gendered visual cues, perhaps the manipulation would have been stronger. More plausibly, this finding could demonstrate that the communication of benevolently sexist organizational climate is similarly damaging regardless of the source gender. Finally, it is also possible that source gender may not impact the relationship between benevolently sexist organizational climate and subsequent self-esteem.
Theoretical contributions
The current paper makes a number of theoretical contributions to the literature on sexism. First, our study extends on ambivalent sexism theory (Glick and Fiske, 1996). From prior research, we know that benevolent sexism at the individual and dyadic levels has a variety of negative impacts on women (e.g. Barreto et al., 2009; Dardenne et al., 2007; King et al., 2012). However, there is a lack of research on benevolent sexism at the organizational level and its impacts on women. This is of concern because, although instances of organization-level benevolent sexism exist (e.g. Bilefsky, 2017), there is no known research addressing the potential top-down impacts of sexism on female employees embedded in organizations. Our study addresses this concern by developing a multilevel framework of benevolent sexism and testing the concept of a benevolently sexist organizational climate. Results demonstrated that a benevolently sexist organizational climate has a negative impact on women's self-esteem, especially when the messaging surrounding the organizational climate is communicated by a supervisor.
Second, our research extends theoretical work on social dominance (e.g. Ghavami and Peplau, 2012; Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Based on previous research, social systems have historically been organized around maintaining power and privilege of dominant groups (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Yet, a complication arises when the beliefs and behaviors used to maintain power over women is seemingly positive and superficially beneficial to women. This is especially concerning considering the subtle, difficult-to-detect nature of benevolent sexism, making it especially difficult for employees to engage in collective action to combat the discrimination stemming from the organizational level (Jones et al., 2016). Our study addresses this concern by demonstrating that a benevolently sexist organizational climate is a method by which organizations may maintain the power and hierarchy of privileged groups.
Third, our study elaborates on gender role theories (e.g. Bem, 1974; Eagly and Karau, 2003) and workplace contexts. From prior research, we know that women are expected to assume stereotypical feminine roles and tasks and that deviating from these expectations can result in negative consequences. However, researchers still do not know the impact of hearing these role expectations on women's self-esteem in the workplace. This is concerning because evidence indicates that when women deviate from role expectations, they encounter negative consequences; however, when complying with gender role expectations based on benevolent sexism, they may also encounter negative consequences, exacerbating the “double-bind problem” (e.g. Madaan and Pradhan, 2017). To address this concern, we empirically tested the impact of the communication of the expectations associated with a benevolently sexist climate on women. This research contributes to the literature by demonstrating the negative impact of merely communicating these stereotypical gender role expectations to women.
Fourth, the current study demonstrated that women's self-esteem was impacted by top-down influences such as a benevolently sexist organizational climate. We know from prior research that self-esteem has been linked to a variety of important workplace outcomes (Riordan et al., 2001; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004; Pierce et al., 1993). Yet, research on benevolent sexism has not fully explored the potential impact of benevolent sexism on women's self-esteem in the workplace. This is of concern because, despite prior research demonstrating the importance of self-esteem in the workplace and the negative impacts of benevolent sexism on self-esteem in non-work settings, research on the impact of benevolent sexism on women's self-esteem in the workplace has been largely neglected (e.g. Dumont et al., 2010). Accordingly, our course of action to address this concern involved testing the impact of benevolently sexist organizational climate on women's self-esteem in a work context.
Fifth, the current study extends research on LMX theory. Previous research has demonstrated that high-quality relationships between supervisors and subordinates are important for optimal organizational functioning (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Golden and Veiga, 2008; Graen and Cashman, 1975). However, researchers have yet to explore the impact of a supervisor versus a coworker communicating benevolent sexist content to women. This is of concern as research on LMX has been shown to have a stronger impact on women than men for a variety of workplace variables, such as organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors (Wang et al., 2017). To address this deficit in the literature, we empirically tested the potential impact of a supervisor communicating benevolently sexist content. Accordingly, our research contributes to the literature by demonstrating the detrimental impact of a supervisor communicating benevolent sexism to a female subordinate. In other words, a supervisor had a greater negative impact on women's self-esteem than a coworker when communicating benevolent sexism, supporting LMX theory.
Sixth, although our hypothesis positing that source gender would moderate the relationship between benevolently sexist organizational climate and self-esteem, such that men would have a greater negative impact than women, was not supported, this pattern of results still provides an important insight. From previous meta-analytic evidence, researchers demonstrated that men generally exert more social influence and authority than women (Lockheed, 1985; Heilman and Parks-Stamm, 2007). However, researchers have yet to explore the potential impact of a male, compared to a female, communicating benevolent sexism to women in the workplace; this gap in the literature merits attention due to the potential for a male communicator to exacerbate the negative impacts of benevolent sexism on women (e.g. Lockheed, 1985; Heilman and Parks-Stamm, 2007). The current study addressed this concern by testing the potential differential impact of the gender of the individual communicating benevolent sexism on women's self-esteem through an experimental lab study. Counter to our theorizing, our findings demonstrated that the communication of benevolently sexist organizational climate is similarly damaging regardless of the source gender. In other words, regardless of gender, managers who communicate benevolently sexist organizational climate can negatively impact women's self-esteem. Alternatively, these findings may be influenced by the gender manipulation (i.e. female or male voice of the communicator), which may not have been a sufficiently strong to result in a significant difference between conditions.
Exploratory results
In general, researchers have focused more on women as they are the primary targets of sexism and, as a result, have focused less on men's experiences. While men encounter sex-discrimination in some contexts (e.g. working in female-dominated industries or occupations), the experiences and outcomes are different between men and women and thus require further study. Our complete dataset (which included a small sample of male-identifying participants) allowed us to conduct a set of exploratory analyses. Specifically, we conducted exploratory analyses to assess the potential impact of self-reported gender identity, masculinity and femininity on the hypothesis-driven results. Interestingly, although there was a significant main effect of both self-reported masculinity and femininity, the pattern of hypothesis-driven results reported did not change. Specifically, the significant interaction between benevolent sexism and source power remained, regardless of the inclusion of male-identifying participants and three additional covariates (i.e. gender, masculinity and femininity). This pattern of results suggests that, regardless of the gender of the participant, the communication of a benevolently sexist organizational climate from a supervisor results in a decrease in self-reported self-esteem. While seemingly counterintuitive, this exploratory finding is in line with previous research, which has shown that benevolent sexism can cause a drop in self-esteem among men as well as women (e.g. Bradley-Geist et al., 2015). Accordingly, based on this finding, we suggest that future research focus on the impact that organization-level sexism has on individual-level outcomes for both male-identifying and female-identifying employees. This should be explored in a variety of career contexts, including traditionally male-dominated and female-dominated industries or occupations.
For our second set of exploratory analyses, we investigated race by looking at patterns of results for Asian and Hispanic women. Intersectionality theory posits that in order to truly understand an individual's identity, we must take into account the overlaying or intersecting minority identities (Bourabain, 2021; Crenshaw, 1993; Rosette et al., 2018). In the current set of exploratory analyses, the overlapping identities that we examined were gender and race/ethnicity (i.e. Asian women and Hispanic women). Based on prior research, we know that women have different experiences and impacts based on their overlapping identities (e.g. Crenshaw, 1993). That being stated, intersectional identities have been largely overlooked in research on benevolent sexism. This gap in the literature is of concern because, by overlooking the overlapping identities of women, researchers are not addressing the unique impacts of benevolent sexism on women with multiple minority identifications. To address this gap, we conducted an exploratory intersectional analysis. Our results suggest that Asian and Hispanic women may be differentially impacted by a benevolently sexist organizational climate.
Asian women's self-esteem significantly decreased when a benevolently sexist supervisor communicated compared to when a benevolently sexist coworker communicated. This finding can be interpreted through the lens of Hofstede's (1991) work on culture. Specifically, Hofstede proposed that Asian cultures are higher on the dimension of power distance (i.e. the belief that supervisors have the right to determine employees' actions and behaviors; Earley and Erez, 1997). Asian heritage and culture have been demonstrated to influence Asian American values, especially regarding power distance (e.g. Xin, 2004). Therefore, the increased negative impact on Asian American participants by a supervisor who yields power over the participant corresponds with previous theory and empirical evidence.
Hispanic women's self-esteem was marginally significant (p = 0.060) and demonstrated decreased when a benevolently sexist female communicated compared to when a benevolently sexist male communicated. Previous literature has demonstrated that Hispanic female employees score higher on Bem's (1974) masculinity dimension compared to non-Hispanic female participants (i.e. both working and non-working) and have lower self-acceptance scores (Long and Martinez, 1994) than non-Hispanic female employees. Additionally, previous researchers have suggested that the self-esteem of Hispanic women is complex and may include unique dimensions compared to self-esteem generally conceptualized (Long and Martinez, 1994). Accordingly, with the low self-acceptance and high masculinity scores, being exposed to benevolent sexism by a woman who they share an identity with, may partially explain women communicators of benevolent sexism having a greater impact on their self-esteem. Therefore, the current study contributes to intersectional literature by demonstrating that women as a demographic category can be differentially impacted by benevolent sexism depending on other overlapping identities (i.e. race/ethnicity). Ultimately, these exploratory analyses provide initial evidence that supports intersectionality theory and future research should investigate this further.
Applied contributions
The findings from this study have a variety of practical implications. For instance, this is the first study that has demonstrated the deleterious impact of a benevolently sexist climate on women's organizational outcomes. The damage to women's self-esteem occurs as a result of a benevolently sexist climate, regardless of the intentions behind the organizational climate. Therefore, practitioners should take steps to ensure that none of the organizational climate practices and policies in place demonstrates, even if unintentionally, benevolently sexist values.
Second, the findings demonstrated that this harmful impact on women's self-esteem was stronger when information regarding the organizational climate was communicated by a supervisor as opposed to a coworker. This finding extends research demonstrating that supervisor communication has a strong impact on subordinates (e.g. Fedor et al., 2001). Furthermore, this specific finding shows that, even though benevolent sexism can feasibly be interpreted as kindness, benevolently sexist communications coming from supervisors have a disproportionately harmful impact on women's self-esteem. Accordingly, these findings could be used to justify the investigation of benevolently sexist organizational climate in the work context.
Overall, these findings can be used to justify the development of training and interventions targeted at mitigating the prevalence of benevolently sexist organizational climate. These interventions should target both men and women supervisors as our findings show that they may have a negative impact on self-esteem when communicating benevolently sexist organizational policy. Ultimately, we believe that this concept can be utilized by practitioners to further investigate and mitigate the top-down influence of benevolent sexism on women in the workplace.
A research agenda and future research
The overarching purpose of this study was to introduce the concept of benevolently sexist organizational climate. Our paper and analyses provide valuable insights into the nature of benevolent sexism from a top-down perspective. However, it is important to note that our analyses were by no means exhaustive and the purpose of the study was to lay a foundation for future researchers to investigate benevolently sexist organizational climate. Therefore, we have created a multilevel research agenda to inspire and guide future researchers to investigate benevolently sexist organizational climate at a variety of levels (e.g. micro, meso and macro; Hitt et al., 2007) and contexts (see Table 4).
In addition to the research agenda, we would like to highlight several future research directions we believe have strong merit. First, we suggest that future researchers should investigate the impact of contextual factors on the relationship between organization-level sexism has on individual-level outcomes for both male-identifying and female-identifying employees. A couple contextual factors that could be explored include, organizational structure and career contexts, including traditionally male-dominated and female-dominated lines of work. Second, we urge future researchers to explore benevolently sexist organizational climate in teams by understanding how benevolently sexist organizational climate impacts team dynamics and performance. Third, we encourage future researchers to extend on our exploratory intersectional findings by assessing how benevolently sexist organizational climate can impact women of different ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, sexual identity and age. Finally, we encourage future researchers to investigate the extent to which benevolently sexist organizational climate impacts organizational performance. Overall, we believe that we laid the foundation for investigating benevolently sexist organizational climate in the workplace, and we encourage future researchers to continue this line of research.
Limitations
The current study has several limitations. First, the self-report and laboratory nature of the study are subject to several issues, such as the strength of manipulation, social desirability bias and compromising external validity. Accordingly, future research should assess the impact of benevolently sexist organizational climate on self-esteem using alternative designs and data collection methods such as longitudinal designs and qualitative methods. Additionally, future research should further investigate the relationship between the gender of communicator and benevolently sexist organizational climate by exploring alternative manipulations.
Second, the study employed a student sample. While the sample was quite diverse in terms of race/ethnicity, it was range-restricted in terms of age. Future research should attempt to reduce range restrictions and increase the generalizability of the sample by collecting data from a variety of non-student sources.
Third, while we were able to run intersectional analyses based on our diverse sample (i.e. comparing the impact of benevolently sexist organizational climate on Hispanic and Asian women), we want to disclose that the appropriate sample size for power to detect meaningful differences was not obtained and the results were exploratory in nature. The purpose of these analyses was to provide initial results demonstrating the importance of the role of intersectionality at work with respect to benevolently sexist organizational climate. Future researchers should aim to replicate and extend the findings with the appropriate power.
Fourth, there were several statistical limitations that should be discussed. The R2 values reported in this study were fairly low. However, it also should be noted that the manipulation was fairly weak, so the effects may have been underreported. In other words, in a real-world work scenario, the impact of the communication in a benevolently sexist climate may have a more substantial, deleterious impact than in a lab setting. Additionally, the Cronbach's alpha for the masculine orientation subscale of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire was low (masculine subscale α = 0.58, Well et al., 2007). Future research should investigate masculine attributes and contexts with additional measures and methods to fully capture the impact of masculinity on benevolently sexist organizational climate.
Fifth, the current study explored multilevel phenomena via an individual-level research design. Accordingly, future work should utilize a multilevel research design to further unpack how benevolent sexism has an impact on the individual, group and organizational work outcomes.
Conclusion
The current study sought to clarify the impact that a benevolently sexist organizational climate has on women's self-esteem and also tested for the moderating effects of source power and source gender. Results indicated a significant two-way interaction between benevolently sexist organizational climate and source power on women's self-esteem. Specifically, the current study's results suggest that a benevolently sexist organizational climate is more deleterious to women's self-esteem when coming from a supervisor as opposed to a coworker. These results shed light on how workplace benevolent sexism impacts women's experience at work and opens up new avenues for future research on this topic.
Figures
Figure 1
The multilevel theoretical model of sexism at different levels
Figure 2
Current multilevel theoretical model
Figure 3
Interactive effect of benevolent sexism and source power on self-esteem (N = 652)
Figure A1
Interactive effect of benevolent sexism and source power on self-esteem (N = 652)
Figure A2
Interactive effect of benevolent sexism and source power on self-esteem for Asian women (N = 139)
Figure A3
Interactive effect of benevolent sexism and source power on self-esteem for Hispanic women (N = 289)
Frequency, percentages, means, and standard deviations for participant demographics
| Variable | N (%) | M (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 18.83 (1.99) | |
| Race | ||
| Hispanic/Latinx | 298 (45.7) | |
| Asian | 139 (21.3) | |
| Multiracial | 91 (14) | |
| White | 86 (13.2) | |
| Other | 38 (5.8) | |
| Year in College | 1.45 (0.86) | |
| First | 473 (72.5) | |
| Second | 99 (15.2) | |
| Third | 48 (7.4) | |
| Fourth | 24 (3.7) | |
| Fifth | 7 (1.1) | |
| Did not specify | 1 (0.1) | |
| Total | 652 |
Note(s): M = mean. SD = standard deviation. N = frequency of participants. % = percentage of total participants
Source(s): Authors' own creation and work
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for study variables
| Variable | N | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Benevolent Sexism (Manipulation) | 652 | 1.50 | 0.50 | – | |||
| 2. Source Power (Manipulation) | 652 | 1.51 | 0.50 | 0.00 | – | ||
| 3. Source Gender (Manipulation) | 652 | 1.52 | 0.50 | 0.03 | 0.01 | – | |
| 4. Self-Esteem | 652 | 3.48 | 0.63 | −0.00 | 0.00 | −0.08 | (0.90) |
Note(s): M = mean. SD = standard deviation. Cronbach's alpha coefficients are presented in parentheses along the diagonal. 1The benevolent sexism manipulation was coded such that 1 = neutral (N = 338), 2 = benevolently-sexist (N = 324). 2The source power manipulation was coded such that 1 = supervisor (N = 336), 2 = coworker (N = 316). 3The source gender manipulation was coded such that 1 = male (N = 3 19), 2 = female (N = 333)
Source(s): Authors' own creation and work
ANOVA predicting self-esteem
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrected model | 5.11 | 7 | 0.73 | 1.87 |
| (Intercept) | 7891.44 | 1 | 7891.44 | 20230.44*** |
| Fixed factors | ||||
| Benevolent Sexism (manipulation)1 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Source Power (manipulation)2 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Source Gender (manipulation)3 | 1.34 | 1 | 1.34 | 3.44 |
| Interactions | ||||
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Power (H1) | 2.14 | 1 | 2.14 | 5.49* |
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Gender (H2) | 0.95 | 1 | 0.95 | 2.43+ |
| Source Power * Source Gender | 0.51 | 1 | 0.51 | 1.31 |
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Power * Source Gender (H3) | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.38 |
| Error | 251.21 | 644 | 0.39 | |
| Total | 8156.98 | 652 | ||
| Corrected Total | 256.32 | 651 | ||
Note(s): +p = 0.12. *p < 0.05. ***p < 0.001. R2 = 0.02. 1The benevolent sexism manipulation was coded such that 1 = neutral (N = 338), 2 = benevolently-sexist (N = 324). 2The source power manipulation was coded such that 1 = supervisor (N = 336), 2 = coworker (N = 316). 3The source gender manipulation was coded such that 1 = male (N = 319), 2 = female (N = 333)
Source(s): Authors' own creation and work
Multilevel research agenda for benevolently-sexist climate
| Level | Topic | Example research questions |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | Gender differences |
|
| Women in the workplace |
| |
| Meso | Dyadic |
|
| Teams |
| |
| Social networks |
| |
| Macro | Industry differences |
|
| Organizational development |
| |
| Organizational performance |
|
Source(s): Authors' own creation and work
Experimental manipulation video script
| Statement 1 | Control: Globitech hopes to increase our customer satisfaction ratings by moving emotionally understanding people into customer service positions |
| Benevolent Sexism: Globitech hopes to increase our customer satisfaction ratings by moving women into customer service positions because women inherently possess more emotional understanding than men | |
| Statement 2 | Control: Globitech will offer special protections for employees with complicated emotional needs, in case they feel overwhelmed or overly stressed out when taking on these new roles |
| Benevolent Sexism: Globitech acknowledges that women have different and more complicated emotional needs than men, and therefore will offer female employees special protections, in case they feel overwhelmed or overly stressed out when taking on these new roles | |
| Statement 3 | Control: Globitech will encourage individuals who brighten up the room with their sunny dispositions and who are attentive to the needs of their superiors and customers alike to apply for new secretarial and administrative assistant positions |
| Benevolent Sexism: Globitech will encourage women to apply for new secretarial and administrative assistant positions since women brighten up the room with their sunny dispositions and are also more attentive to the needs of their superiors and customers alike | |
| Statement 4 | Control: Globitech will initiate a new feedback process that will better account for the emotional toll that negative feedback and criticism have on some employees |
| Benevolent Sexism: Globitech will initiate a new feedback process that will better account for the emotional toll that negative feedback and criticism have on women | |
| Statement 5 | Control: Globitech will offer employees a variety of opportunities to utilize their natural abilities, such as sensitivity to the needs of others, intuition, and cooperative spirit |
| Benevolent Sexism: Globitech will offer female employees a variety of opportunities to utilize their natural abilities, such as sensitivity to the needs of others, intuition, and cooperative spirit | |
| Statement 6 | Control: Globitech will initiate a mentoring program, where senior associates will mentor junior associates to help them acclimate to the business world and become more business-minded |
| Benevolent Sexism: Globitech will initiate a mentoring program, where senior male associates will mentor junior female associates to help them acclimate to the business world and become more business-minded |
Source(s): Authors' own creation and work
ANOVA predicting self-esteem with control variables
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrected Model | 66.75 | 10 | 6.67 | 21.149*** |
| (Intercept) | 34.79 | 1 | 34.79 | 110.233*** |
| Covariates | ||||
| Gender1 | 0.121 | 1 | 0.121 | 0.38 |
| Masculinity | 62.37 | 1 | 62.37 | 197.63*** |
| Femineity | 1.95 | 1 | 1.95 | 6.17* |
| Fixed factors | ||||
| Benevolent Sexism (manipulation)2 | 0.03 | 1 | 0.03 | 0.09 |
| Source Power (manipulation)3 | 0.49 | 1 | 0.49 | 1.54 |
| Source Gender (manipulation)4 | 0.04 | 1 | 0.04 | 0.113 |
| Interactions | ||||
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Power | 3.11 | 1 | 3.11 | 9.84** |
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Gender | 0.14 | 1 | 0.14 | 0.43 |
| Source Power * Source Gender | 0.12 | 1 | 0.12 | 0.37 |
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Power * Source Gender | 0.31 | 1 | 0.31 | 0.98 |
| Error | 253.10 | 802 | 0.32 | |
| Total | 10245.18 | 813 | ||
| Corrected Total | 256.32 | 812 | ||
Note(s): *p < 0.05. ***p < 0.001. R2 = 0.21. 1Gender was coded such that 1 = male (N = 213) and 2 = Female (N = 644). 2The benevolent sexism manipulation was coded such that 1 = neutral (N = 411), 2 = benevolently-sexist (N = 402). 3The source power manipulation was coded such that 1 = supervisor (N = 397), 2 = coworker (N = 416). 4The source gender manipulation was coded such that 1 = male (N = 401), 2 = female (N = 412)
Source(s): Authors' own creation and work
ANOVA predicting self-esteem for Asian women
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrected Model | 3.83 | 7 | 0.55 | 1.48 |
| (Intercept) | 1495.70 | 1 | 1495.70 | 4043.71*** |
| Fixed Factors | ||||
| Benevolent Sexism (manipulation)1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.12 |
| Source Power (manipulation)2 | 0.02 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
| Source Gender (manipulation)3 | 0.92 | 1 | 0.92 | 2.48 |
| Interactions | ||||
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Power | 2.17 | 1 | 2.17 | 5.87* |
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Gender | 0.17 | 1 | 0.17 | 0.47 |
| Source Power * Source Gender | 0.26 | 1 | 0.26 | 0.40 |
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Power * Source Gender | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.72 |
| Error | 48.45 | 131 | 0.37 | |
| Total | 1571.32 | 139 | ||
| Corrected Total | 52.29 | 138 | ||
Note(s): *p < 0.05. ***p < 0.001. R2 = 0.07. 1The benevolent sexism manipulation was coded such that 1 = neutral (N = 69), 2 = benevolently-sexist (N = 70). 2The source power manipulation was coded such that 1 = supervisor (N = 68), 2 = coworker (N = 71). 3The source gender manipulation was coded such that 1 = male (N = 68), 2 = female (N = 71)
Source(s): Authors' own creation and work
ANOVA predicting self-esteem for hispanic women
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrected Model | 3.04 | 7 | 0.44 | 1.17 |
| (Intercept) | 3602.19 | 1 | 3602.19 | 9704*** |
| Fixed Factors | ||||
| Benevolent Sexism (manipulation)1 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| Source Power (manipulation)2 | 0.57 | 1 | 0.57 | 1.55 |
| Source Gender (manipulation)3 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.31 |
| Interactions | ||||
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Power | 0.31 | 1 | 0.31 | 0.82 |
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Gender | 1.33 | 1 | 1.33 | 3.57+ |
| Source Power * Source Gender | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Benevolent Sexism * Source Power * Source Gender | 0.45 | 1 | 0.45 | 1.21 |
| Error | 107.27 | 289 | 0.37 | |
| Total | 3752.80 | 297 | ||
| Corrected Total | 110.32 | 296 | ||
Note(s): +p = 0.060. ***p < 0.001. R2 = 0.03. 1The benevolent sexism manipulation was coded such that 1 = neutral (N = 146), 2 = benevolently-sexist (N = 151). 2The source power manipulation was coded such that 1 = supervisor (N = 142), 2 = coworker (N = 155). 3The source gender manipulation was coded such that 1 = male (N = 148), 2 = female (N = 149)
Source(s): Authors' own creation and work
Appendix 1 Video manipulation script
Below is the script that was used in the laboratory video manipulation. After presenting the information about the role-playing activity in the fictitious company (i.e. “Globitech”), the participants were read either the control or benevolently sexist statements
Appendix 2 Gender differences exploratory analyses
To determine if gender differences exist, we examined gender identity by controlling for reported gender (i.e. male and female), masculine attributes, and feminine attributes in our model. Therefore, included both male-identifying (N = 213) and female-identifying (N = 644) participants in this analysis. These participants were all involved in the original data collection efforts outlined in the methods section. Accordingly, we conducted an ANCOVA to determine whether the covariates impacted the overall model (see Table A2). Similar to the original findings, the interaction between benevolently-sexist organizational climate and source power on self-esteem was significant, F(1, 802) = 9.84, p < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.01(see Figure A1), whereas the interaction between benevolently-sexist organizational climate and source gender as well as the three-way interaction were not significant, F(1, 802) = 0.43, p = 0.514 and F(1, 802) = 0.98, p = 0.322, respectively. Specifically, the significant interaction between benevolently-sexist organizational climate and source power mirrored the results found in the original analyses, demonstrating that self-esteem was most negatively impacted when benevolently-sexist organizational climate was communicated by a supervisor.
Appendix 3 Intersectional exploratory analyses
Based on the highly diverse demographics reported in our sample, we ran an exploratory intersectional analysis through ANOVA on the two highest reported race/ethnicity demographic variables (i.e. Asian and Hispanic women). For Asian women (N = 139), the interaction of benevolently-sexist organizational climate and power was significant (F(1, 131) = 5.87, p < 0.05). More specifically, Asian women were most negatively impacted when a supervisor communicated benevolently-sexist content. For Hispanic women (N = 297), the interaction of benevolently-sexist organizational climate and gender was marginally significant (F(1, 289) = 3.57, p = 0.060). More specifically, Hispanic women were most negatively impacted when a female communicated benevolently-sexist content.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Altemeyer, R.A. and Jones, K. (1974), “Sexual identity, physical attractiveness and seating position as determinants of influence in discussion groups”, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 357-375.
Atwater, L.E., Carey, J.A. and Waldman, D.A. (2001), “Gender and discipline in the workplace: wait until your father gets home”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 537-561.
Bajdo, L.M. and Dickson, M.W. (2001), “Perceptions of organizational culture and women's advancement in organizations: a cross-cultural examination”, Sex Roles, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 399-414.
Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Piebinga, L. and Moya, M. (2009), “How nice of us and how dumb of me: the effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women's task and relational self-descriptions”, Sex Roles, Vol. 62 Nos 7-8, pp. 532-544.
Bem, S.L. (1974), “The measurement of psychological androgyny”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 155-162.
Bilefsky, D. (2017), “Sent home for not wearing heels, she ignited a British rebellion”, The New York Times, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/world/europe/high-heels-british-inquiry-dress-codes-women.html?auth=login-facebook
Bosson, J.K., Pinel, E.C. and Vandello, J.A. (2010), “The emotional impact of ambivalent sexism: forecasts versus real experiences”, Sex Roles, Vol. 62 Nos 7-8, pp. 520-531.
Bourabain, D. (2021), “Everyday sexism and racism in the ivory tower: the experiences of early career researchers on the intersection of gender and ethnicity in the academic workplace”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 248-267.
Boxer, C.F. and Ford, T.E. (2001), “Sexist humor in the workplace: a case of subtle harassment”, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Indisious Workplace Behavior, Routledge, New York, pp. 203-234.
Bradley-Geist, J.C., Rivera, I. and Geringer, S.D. (2015), “The collateral damage of ambient sexism: observing sexism impacts bystander self-esteem and career aspirations”, Sex Roles, Vol. 73 Nos 1-2, pp. 29-42.
Chen, A. (2019), “Japan's #kutoo movement aims to stop employers from requiring women to wear heels”, Time, available at: https://time.com/5548873/japan-kutoo-high-heels-metoo/
Choo, E.K., Byington, C.L., Johnson, N.L. and Jagsi, R. (2019), “From# MeToo to# TimesUp in health care: can a culture of accountability end inequity and harassment?”, The Lancet, Vol. 393 No. 10171, pp. 499-502.
Crenshaw, K. (1993), “Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics and the violence against women of color”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, pp. 1241-1299.
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M. and Bollier, T. (2007), “Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: consequences for women's performance”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5, pp. 764-779.
Davidson, M., Czopp, A.M. and Mark, A.Y. (2015), “When sexism is persuasive: agreement with hostile and benevolent sexism as a function of source gender”, Social Influence, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 264-277.
Dellinger, K. (2002), “Wearing gender and sexuality ‘on your sleeve’: dress norms and the importance of occupational and organizational culture at work”, Gender, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-25.
Derks, B., Ellemers, N., Van Laar, C. and De Groot, K. (2011), “Do sexist organizational cultures create the queen bee?”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 519-535.
Dumont, M., Sarlet, M. and Dardenne, B. (2010), “Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence”, Sex Roles, Vol. 62 Nos 7-8, pp. 545-553.
Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2003), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”, Psychological Review, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 573-598.
Earley, P.C. and Erez, M. (1997), The Transplanted Executive: Why You Need to Understand How Workers in Other Countries See the World Differently, Oxford University Press, New York.
Ellemers, N. (2014), “Women at work: how organizational features impact career development”, Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 46-54.
Fedi, A. and Rollero, C. (2016), “If stigmatized, self-esteem is not enough: effects of sexism, self-esteem and social identity on leadership aspiration”, Europe's Journal of Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 533-549.
Fedor, D.B., Davis, W.D., Maslyn, J.M. and Mathieson, K. (2001), “Performance improvement efforts in response to negative feedback: the roles of source power and recipient self-esteem”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 79-97.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997), “Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 827-844.
Ghavami, N. and Peplau, L.A. (2012), “An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: testing three hypotheses”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 113-127.
Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (1996), “The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 491-512.
Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (2001), “An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 109-118.
Golden, T.D. and Veiga, J.F. (2008), “The impact of superior–subordinate relationships on the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 77-88.
Good, J.J. and Rudman, L.A. (2010), “When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: the costs of being a target of benevolent sexism”, Sex Roles, Vol. 62 Nos 7-8, pp. 481-493.
Graen, G. and Cashman, J.F. (1975), “A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a developmental approach”, in Hung, J.G. and Larsen, L.L.L. (Eds), Leadership Frontiers, Kent State University Press, Kent, OH, pp. 143-165.
Gundry, L.K. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Critical incidents in communicating culture to newcomers: the meaning is the message”, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 1063-1088.
Heatherton, T.F. and Polivy, J. (1991), “Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 895-910.
Heilman, M.E. and Parks-Stamm, E.J. (2007), “Gender stereotypes in the workplace: obstacles to women’s career progress”, Social Psychology of Gender, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 24, pp. 47-77.
Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E. and Mathieu, J.E. (2007), “Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: multilevel research in management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 1385-1399.
Hofstede, G. (1991), “Empirical models of cultural differences”, in Bleichrodt, N., Drenth, P.D., Bleichrodt, N. and Drenth, P.D. (Eds), Contemporary Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology, Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers, Lisse, pp. 4-20.
IBM (2017), SPSS Statistics, Version 25.0 [Computer Software], IBM, Armonk, NY.
Jones, K.P., Peddie, C.I., Gilrane, V.L., King, E.B. and Gray, A.L. (2016), “Not so subtle: a meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1588-1613.
Joshi, A., Neely, B., Emrich, C., Griffiths, D. and George, G. (2015), “Gender research in AMJ: an overview of five decades of empirical research and calls to action: thematic issue on gender in management research”, Academy of Management, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 1459-1474.
King, E.B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M.R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J.F. and Perkins, A. (2012), “Benevolent sexism at work: gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1835-1866.
Konrad, A.M., Cannings, K. and Goldberg, C.B. (2010), “Asymmetrical demography effects on psychological climate for gender diversity: differential effects of leader gender and work unit gender composition among Swedish doctors”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1661-1685.
Lee, T.L., Fiske, S.T., Glick, P. and Chen, Z. (2010), “Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals”, Sex Roles, Vol. 62, pp. 583-601.
Lewis, S. (1997), “‘Family friendly’ employment policies: a route to changing organizational culture or playing about at the margins?”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Lockheed, M.E. (1985), “Sex and social influence: a meta-analysis guided by theory”, in Berger, J. and ZelditchJr., M. (Eds), Status, Rewards, and Influence, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 406-427.
Long, V.O. and Martinez, E.A. (1994), “Masculinity, femininity, and hispanic professional women's self-esteem and self-acceptance”, Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 183-186.
Madaan, V. and Pradhan, P. (2017), “Impact of double bind and promotional paradox on work performance of women”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 129-140.
Manuel, S.K., Howansky, K., Chaney, K.E. and Sanchez, D.T. (2017), “No rest for the stigmatized: a model of organizational health and workplace sexism (OHWS)”, Sex Roles, Vol. 77 No. 9, pp. 697-708.
Mechanic, D. (1962), “Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 349-364.
Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, F., De Lemus, S. and Hart, J. (2007), “It's for your own good: benevolent sexism and women's reactions to protectively justified restrictions”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 1421-1434.
Neves, P. and Eisenberger, R. (2012), “Management communication and employee performance: the contribution of perceived organizational support”, Human Performance, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 452-464.
Oswald, D.L., Baalbaki, M. and Kirkman, M. (2019), “Experiences with benevolent sexism: scale development and associations with women's well-being”, Sex Roles, Vol. 80, pp. 362-380.
Pacilli, M.G., Spaccatini, F., Giovannelli, I., Centrone, D. and Roccato, M. (2019), “System justification moderates the relation between hostile (but not benevolent) sexism in the workplace and state anxiety: an experimental study”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 159 No. 4, pp. 474-481.
Pierce, J.L. and Gardner, D.G. (2004), “Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: a review of the organization-based self-esteem literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 591-622.
Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Dunham, R.B. and Cummings, L.L. (1993), “The moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on role condition-employee response relationships”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 271-288.
Propp, K.M. (1995), “An experimental examination of biological sex as a status cue in decision-making groups and its influence on information use”, Small Group Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 451-474.
Qualtrics (2019), “Computer software”, available at: https://www.qualtrics.com/
Riordan, C.M., Weatherly, E.W., Vandenberg, R.J. and Self, R.M. (2001), “The effects of pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics on newcomer attitudes and turnover”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 159-177.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C. and Rosenberg, F. (1995), “Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: different concepts, different outcomes”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 60, pp. 141-156.
Rosette, A.S., de Leon, R.P., Koval, C.Z. and Harrison, D.A. (2018), “Intersectionality: connecting experiences of gender with race at work”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38, pp. 1-22.
Rubin, M., Paolini, S., Subašić, E. and Giacomini, A. (2019), “A confirmatory study of the relations between workplace sexism, sense of belonging, mental health, and job satisfaction among women in male-dominated industries”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 267-282.
Sidanius, J. and Pratto, F. (1999), Social Dominance: an Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Stamarski, C.S. and Son Hing, L.S. (2015), “Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers' sexism”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6, 1400.
Tse, H.H., Lam, C.K., Lawrence, S.A. and Huang, X. (2013), “When my supervisor dislikes you more than me: the effect of dissimilarity in leader–member exchange on coworkers' interpersonal emotion and perceived help”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 6, pp. 974-988.
Turban, D.B. and Jones, A.P. (1988), “Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects, and mechanisms”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 228-234.
Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J.L. (2004), “Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 439-459.
Wang, P.Q., Kim, P.B. and Milne, S. (2017), “Leader-member exchange (LMX) and its workplace outcomes: the moderating role of gender”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 125-143.
Warren, C., Duong, N.S., Salter, N.P. and Sachdeva, A. (2022), “Broadening the context: addressing systemic oppression in organizational research”, in King, E.B., Roberson, Q.M. and Hebl, M.R. (Eds), The Future of Scholarship on Race in Organizations, Information Age Publishing, Incorporate, pp. 21-51.
Warren, C., Wax, A., Brush, O.T., Magalonga, J. and Galvez, G. (2023), “Development and validation of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace scale”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, pp. 1-30, doi: 10.1111/joop.12435.
Wax, A., Coletti, K.K. and Ogaz, J.W. (2018), “The benefit of full disclosure: a meta-analysis of the implications of coming out at work”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Wee, E.X. and Taylor, M.S. (2018), “Attention to change: a multilevel theory on the process of emergent continuous organizational change”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-74.
Well, S.V., Kolk, A.M. and Oei, N.L. (2007), “Direct and indirect assessments of gender role identification”, Sex Roles, Vol. 56 Nos 9-10, pp. 617-628.
Wilson, E.J. and Sherrell, D.L. (1993), “Source effects in communication and persuasion research: a meta-analysis of effect size”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 101-112.
Xin, K.R. (2004), “Asian American managers: an impression gap? An investigation of impression management and supervisor-subordinate relationships”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 160-181.
Yeginsu, C. (2019), Virgin Atlantic Won't Make Female Flight Attendants Wear Makeup or Skirts Anymore, The New York Times, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/business/virgin-atlantic-flight-attendants-makeup.html
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers: 5UL1GM118979; 5TL4GM118980; and 5RL5GM118978. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.