You are using an outdated browser.
For a better experience, please upgrade your browser here.

50 Ways to Fight Bias endnotes

Endnotes

50 Ways to Fight Bias draws on research from leading experts and findings from LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company’s Women in the Workplace study. Below is the full list of the research driving the program:

  1. Eric Luis Uhlmann and Geoffrey L. Cohen, “Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination,” Psychological Science 16, no. 6 (2005): 474–80. For a discussion, see Cheryl Staats, State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review 2014, Kirwan Institute, Ohio State University (2014); Shelley Correll, “Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces: A Small Wins Approach to Organizational Change,” Gender & Society 31, no. 6 (Dec. 1, 2017): 725–50, https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/reducing-gender-biases-modern-workplaces-small-wins-approach.
  2. Joan C. Williams and Rachel Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work: Four Patterns Working Women Need to Know (New York: NYU Press, 2014); Laurie A. Rudman, Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, Peter Glick, and Julie E. Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards: Advances in Backlash Theory,” in Patricia Devine and Ashby Plant, eds., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 45 (Burlington: Academic Press, 2012), 167–227.
  3. Melissa Sandgren, “The paradox of meritocracy,” World Economic Forum, March 21, 2016, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/the-paradox-of-meritocracy/; Emilio J. Castilla and Stephen Benard, “The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly 55, no. 4 (2010): 543–676, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2189/ asqu.2010.55.4.543.
  4. LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company, Women in the Workplace 2018 (Oct. 2018), http://womenintheworkplace.com.
  5. Stefanie K. Johnson, David R. Hekman, and Elsa T. Chan, “If There’s Only One Woman in Your Candidate Pool, There’s Statistically No Chance She’ll Be Hired,” Harvard Business Review, April 26, 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/04/if-theres-only-one-woman-in-your-candidate-pool-theres-statistically-no-chance-shell-be-hired.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Lauren A. Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms,” American Sociological Review 77, no. 6 (2012): 999–1022, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122412463213; Rhea E. Steinpreis, Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study,” Sex Roles 41, nos. 7–8 (1999): 509–28; Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, et al., “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, no. 41 (2012): 16474–79; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  8. Kathleen McGinn and Nicole Tempest, Heidi Roizen, Harvard Business School Case Study #9-800-228 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2008); Madeline E. Heilman and Tyler G. Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks? The Implied Communality Deficit,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 1 (2007): 81–92; Madeline E. Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 3 (2004): 416–27; Laurie A. Rudman, “Self-Promotion as a Risk-Factor for Women: The Costs and Benefits of Counterstereotypical Impression Management,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 3 (1998): 629–45, http://search.committee.module.rutgers.edu/pdf/Rudman_self_promoing.pdf.
  9. Corinne A. Moss-Racusin and Laurie A. Rudman, “Disruptions in Women's Self-Promotion: The Backlash Avoidance Model,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 34, no. 2 (2010): 186–202, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01561.x'; Rudman, “Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  10. Sangeeta Badal, “The Business Benefits of Gender Diversity,” Gallup (Jan. 20, 2014), https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236543/business-benefits-gender-diversity.aspx; Sara Ellison and Wallace P. Mullin, “Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm,” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 23, no. 2 (Summer 2014): 465–81, https://economics.mit.edu/files/8851; Vivian Hunt, Lareina Yee, Sara Prince, and Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle, Delivering Through Diversity, McKinsey & Company (2018), https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity; Katherine W. Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” Scientific American, Oct. 1, 2014, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter.
  11. Neha Mahajan and Karen Wynn, “Origins of ‘us’ versus ‘them’: Prelinguistic infants prefer similar others,” Cognition 124, no. 2 (2012): 227–33; Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook, “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,” Annual Review of Sociology 27 (2001): 415–44, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415; Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching.”
  12. Melissa Korn, “Choice of Work Partner Splits Along Gender Lines,” The Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2012, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303506404577448652549105934; Michelle R. Hebl, Jessica Bigazzi Foster, Laura M. Mannix, et al., “Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination: A Field Study of Bias Toward Homosexual Applicants,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (2002): 815–25, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167202289010; Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching.”
  13. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  14. Badal, “The Business Benefits of Gender Diversity”; Ellison and Mullin, “Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm”; Hunt, Yee, Prince, and Dixon-Fyle, Delivering Through Diversity; Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter.”
  15. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  16. Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates”; Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, et al., “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.”
  17. Miriam G. Resendez, “The Stigmatizing Effects of Affirmative Action: An Examination of Moderating Variables,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32, no. 1 (2002): 185–206.
  18. Shelley Correll and Caroline Simard, “Research: Vague Feedback Is Holding Women Back,” Harvard Business Review, April 29, 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/04/research-vague-feedback-is-holding-women-back; Women in the Workplace 2018.
  19. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  20. Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, et al., “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students”; Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates”; Madeline E. Heilman and Michelle C. Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due: Attributional Rationalization of Women’s Success in Male-Female Teams,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no. 5 (2005): 905–26; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  21. Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due”; Madeline E. Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias,” Research in Organizational Behavior 32 (2012): 113–35.
  22. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  23. Joan Williams, Katherine Phillips, and Erica Hall, Double Jeopardy: Gender Bias Against Women in Science, The Center for WorkLife Law (2014), https://worklifelaw.org/publications/Double-Jeopardy-Report_v6_full_web-sm.pdf; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  24. Brian Nosek et al., “Pervasiveness and Correlates of Implicit Attitudes and Stereotypes,” European Review of Social Psychology 18, no. 1 (2007), 36–88, 'http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20061202money2.pdf; Anne M. Koenig, Alice H. Eagly, Abigail A. Mitchell, and Tiina Ristikari, “Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms,” Psychological Bulletin 137, no. 4 (2011): 616–42, http://www.academia.edu/14081116/Are_Leader_Stereotypes_Masculine_A_Meta-Analysis_of_ Three_Research_Paradigms.
  25. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  26. Heilman and Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?”; Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  27. Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Rudman, “Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women”; LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company, Women in the Workplace 2017 (Oct. 2017).
  28. Nosek et al., “Pervasiveness and Correlates of Implicit Attitudes and Stereotypes”; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, and Ristikari, “Are leader stereotypes masculine?”
  29. Heilman and Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?”; Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  30. Heilman and Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?”; Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success”; Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  31. Shelley Correll et al., “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112, no. 5 (March 2007), https://sociology.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/getting_a_job-_is_there_a_motherhood_penalty.pdf; Joan C. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall,” Academe 90, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 2004): 16–20, https://www.provost.umich.edu/faculty/family/resources/pdf/Hitting-the-Maternal-Wall-Williams.pdf.
  32. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Correll et al., “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?”
  33. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  34. Ibid.
  35. Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due”; Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias.”
  36. Badal, “The Business Benefits of Gender Diversity”; Ellison and Mullin, “Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm”; Hunt, Yee, Prince, and Dixon-Fyle, Delivering Through Diversity; Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter.”
  37. Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”; Naomi Ellemers, “Gender Stereotypes,” Annual Review of Psychology 69 (2018): 275–98; Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, “It Pays to Negotiate,” LeanIn.Org, https://leanin.org/education/negotiation-pays-negotiate/; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Joan Williams, “Sticking women with the office housework,” Washington Post, April 16, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/04/16/sticking-women-with-the-office-housework/?utm_term=.10d838a5021b.
  38. Badal, “The Business Benefits of Gender Diversity”; Ellison and Mullin, “Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm”; Hunt, Yee, Prince, and Dixon-Fyle, Delivering Through Diversity; Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter.”
  39. Christopher F. Karpowitz, Tali Mendelberg, and Lee Shaker, “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation,” American Political Science Review 106, no. 3 (2012): 533–47.
  40. Lilia M. Cortina, Dana Kabat-Farr, Emily A. Leskinen, et al., “Selective Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations: Evidence and Impact,” Journal of Management 39, no. 6 (2013): 1579–1605, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0149206311418835; Kieran Snyder, “How to Get Ahead as a Woman in Tech: Interrupt Men,” Slate, July 23, 2014, http://www.slate. com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/07/23/study_men_interrupt_women_more_in_tech_workplaces_but_high_ranking_women.html’.
  41. Uhlmann and Cohen, “Constructed Criteria.”
  42. Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, et al., “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students”; Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates”; Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  43. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  44. Uhlmann and Cohen, “Constructed Criteria”; Lori Mackenzie, JoAnne Wehner, and Shelley Correll, “Why Most Performance Evaluations Are Biased, and How to Fix Them,” Harvard Business Review, Jan. 11, 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/01/why-most-performance-evaluations-are-biased-and-how-to-fix-them.
  45. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall.”
  46. Correll et al., “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?”
  47. Katherine Weisshaar, “From Opt Out to Blocked Out: The Challenges for Labor Market Re-entry after Family-Related Employment Lapses,” American Sociological Review 83, no. 1 (2018): 34–60.
  48. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  49. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall.”
  50. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  51. Ibid.
  52. Correll, “Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces”; Joelle Emerson, “Don’t Give Up on Unconscious Bias Training—Make It Better,” Harvard Business Review, April 28, 2017, https://hbr.org/2017/04/dont-give-up-on-unconscious-bias-training-make-it-better.
  53. Nosek et al., “Pervasiveness and Correlates of Implicit Attitudes and Stereotypes”; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, and Ristikari, “Are leader stereotypes masculine?”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  54. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  55. Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  56. Snyder, “How to Get Ahead as a Woman in Tech.”
  57. Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”; Ellemers, “Gender Stereotypes”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  58. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather.”
  59. Ibid.; Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching”; Center for Talent Innovation, “The Sponsorship Dividend” (2019), https://www.talentinnovation.org/_private/assets/ TheSponsorDividend_KeyFindingsCombined-CTI.pdf.
  60. LeanIn.Org and SurveyMonkey survey conducted January 23–25, 2018, among a national sample of 2,950 employed adults, https://leanin.org/sexual-harassment-backlash-survey-results.
  61. Shelley Correll and Lori Mackenzie, “To Succeed in Tech, Women Need More Visibility,” Harvard Business Review, Sept. 13, 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/09/to-succeed-in-tech-women-need-more-visibility.
  62. Karpowitz, Mendelberg, and Shaker, “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation”; Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due”; Melissa C. Thomas-Hunt and Katherine W. Phillips, “When What You Know Is Not Enough: Expertise and Gender Dynamics in Task Groups,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30, no. 12 (2004): 1585–98; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  63. Uhlmann and Cohen, “Constructed Criteria.”
  64. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather”; Hebl, Foster, Mannix, et al., “Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination”; Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching.”
  65. Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai, “Social incentives for gender divergences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103 (2007): 84–103, https://wappp.hks.harvard.edu/files/wappp/files/social_incentives_for_gender_differences_in_the_propensity_to_initiate_negotiations-_sometimes_it_does_hurt_to_ask_0.pd.
  66. McGinn and Tempest, Heidi Roizen; Heilman and Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?”; Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success.”
  67. Bowles, Babcock, and Lai, “Social incentives for gender divergences in the propensity to initiate negotiations.”
  68. Heilman and Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?”; Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  69. Women in the Workplace 2017.
  70. Rudman, “Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women”; Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”; Moss-Racusin and Rudman, “Disruptions in Women's Self-Promotion”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  71. Nosek et al., “Pervasiveness and Correlates of Implicit Attitudes and Stereotypes”; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, and Ristikari, “Are leader stereotypes masculine?”
  72. Tammy D. Allen, Lillian T. Eby, Mark L. Poteet, et al., “Career Benefits Associated with Mentoring for Proteges: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 1 (Feb. 2004): 127–36, http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-10572-010; George F. Dreher and Taylor H. Cox Jr., “Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships,” Journal of Applied Psychology 81, no. 3 (1996): 297–308, http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-04951-007.
  73. Catalyst, Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement (2010), http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/Mentoring_Necessary_But_Insufficient_for_Advancement_Final_120610.pdf; Women in the Workplace 2018; Center for Talent Innovation, “The Sponsorship Dividend.”
  74. Women in the Workplace 2018; Catalyst and Deloitte, Missing Pieces Report: The 2018 Board Diversity Census of Women and Minorities on Fortune 500 Boards (2018), https://www.catalyst.org/system/files/missing_pieces_report_01152019_final.pdf.
  75. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather.”
  76. Korn, “Choice of Work Partner Splits Along Gender Lines”; Hebl, Foster, Mannix, et al., “Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination”; Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching”; Catalyst, Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement.
  77. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall.”
  78. Peter D. Brandon and Jeromey B. Temple, “Family Provisions at the Workplace and Their Relationship to Absenteeism, Retention, and Productivity of Workers: Timely Evidence from Prior Data,” Australian Journal of Social Issues 42, no. 4 (Summer 2007; issued online Dec. 22, 2016): 447–60, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2007.tb00071.x.
  79. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall”; Correll et al., “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?”
  80. Gina Gibson-Beverly and Jonathan P. Schwartz, “Attachment, Entitlement, and the Impostor Phenomenon in Female Graduate Students,” Journal of College Counseling 11, no. 2 (2008): 120–21; Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Ament Imes, “The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention,” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 15, no. 3 (1978): 241–47.
  81. Gibson-Beverly and Schwartz, “Attachment, Entitlement, and the Impostor Phenomenon in Female Graduate Students”; Clance and Imes, “The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women”; Michelle C. Haynes and Madeline E. Heilman, “It Had to Be You (Not Me)! Women’s Attributional Rationalization of Their Contribution to Successful Joint Work Outcomes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39, no. 7 (2013): 956–69; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  82. Eileen Appelbaum and Ruth Milkman, “Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California,” Center for Economic and Policy Research (2011), http://cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-family-leave-1-2011.pdf.
  83. Ibid.
  84. Scott Coltrane et al., “Fathers and Flexibility Stigma,” Journal of Social Issues 69, no.2 (2013): 279–302; Laurie A. Rudman and Kris Mescher, “Penalizing Men Who Request a Family Leave: Is Flexibility Stigma a Femininity Stigma?” Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 2 (2013): 32–40; Jennifer L. Berdahl andSue H. Moon, “Workplace Mistreatment of Middle Class Workers Based on Sex, Parenthood, and Caregiving,” Journal of Social Issues 69, no. 2 (2013): 341–66; Adam B. Butler and Amie Skattebo, “What Is Acceptable for Women May Not Be for Men: The Effect of Family Conflicts with Work on Job-Performance Ratings,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77, no. 4 (2004): 553–64.
  85. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall.”
  86. Coltrane et al., “Fathers and Flexibility Stigma”; Rudman and Mescher, “Penalizing Men Who Request a Family Leave”; Berdahl and Moon, “Workplace Mistreatment of Middle Class Workers Based on Sex, Parenthood, and Caregiving”; Butler and Skattebo, “What Is Acceptable for Women May Not Be for Men.”
  87. Brandon and Temple, “Family Provisions at the Workplace and Their Relationship to Absenteeism, Retention, and Productivity of Workers.”
  88. Ibid.
  89. Appelbaum and Milkman, “Leaves That Pay.”
  90. Brandon and Temple, “Family Provisions at the Workplace and Their Relationship to Absenteeism, Retention, and Productivity of Workers.”
  91. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  92. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather.”
  93. Emilio J. Castilla, “Social Networks and Employee Performance in a Call Center,” American Journal of Sociology 110, no. 5 (March 2005): 1243–83.
  94. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  95. Ibid., unpublished data.
  96. Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  97. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  98. Ibid.
  99. Uhlmann and Cohen, “Constructed Criteria.”
  100. Correll, “Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces”; Mackenzie, Wehner, and Correll, “Why Most Performance Evaluations Are Biased, and How to Fix Them.”
  101. Alexandra Kalev, Erin Kelly, and Frank Dobbin, “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies,” American Sociological Review 71, no. 4 (Aug. 2006): 589–617; Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, “Why Firms Need Diversity Managers and Task Forces,” in M. Pilati, H. Sheikh, C. Tilly, and F. Sperotti, eds., How Global Migration Changes the Workforce Diversity Equation(Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014): 170–98.
  102. Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  103. Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due.”
  104. Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  105. McGinn and Tempest, Heidi Roizen; Heilman and Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?”; Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success.”
  106. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  107. Women in the Workplace 2018; M. Paz Galupo and Courtney A. Resnick, “Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy,” in Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations: Global Perspectives on LGBT Workforce Diversity (Springer, 2016), 271–87.
  108. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  109. Ibid.
  110. Ibid.
  111. Ibid.
  112. Women in the Workplace 2018; Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1977).
  113. Paul Ingram and Tal Simons, “Institutional and Resource Dependence Determinants of Responsiveness to Work-Family Issues,” The Academy of Management Journal 38, no. 5 (1995): 1466–82, http://www.jstor.org/stable/256866?seq=1#page_scan_tab_content; Badal, “The Business Benefits of Gender Diversity”; Ellison and Mullin, “Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm”; Hunt, Yee, Prince, and Dixon-Fyle, Delivering Through Diversity; Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter.”
  114. Badal, “The Business Benefits of Gender Diversity”; Ellison and Mullin, “Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm”; Hunt, Yee, Prince, and Dixon-Fyle, Delivering Through Diversity; Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter.”
  115. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  116. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  117. Nosek et al., “Pervasiveness and Correlates of Implicit Attitudes and Stereotypes”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  118. Lisa Feldman Barrett and Eliza Bliss-Moreau, “She’s Emotional. He’s Having a Bad Day: Attributional Explanations for Emotion Stereotypes,” Emotion 9, no. 5 (2009): 649–58, https://www.affective-science.org/pubs/2009/shes-emotional-2009.pdf; Carolyn Centeno Milton, “Psychological Research Shows How Biased We Are When It Comes to Female Leadership: An Interview with Madeline Heilman,” Forbes, May 15, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyncenteno/2018/05/15/psychological-research-shows-how-biased-we-are-when-it-comes-to-female-leadership/#2acee72e1023; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  119. Ibid.
  120. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  121. Ibid.
  122. Ibid.
  123. Correll, “Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces”; Emerson, “Don’t Give Up on Unconscious Bias Training—Make It Better.”
  124. Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall.”
  125. Stephen Benard and Shelley J. Correll, “Normative Discrimination and the Motherhood Penalty,” Gender and Society 24, no. 5 (2010): 616–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210383142; Williams, “Hitting the Maternal Wall.”
  126. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  127. Snyder, “How to Get Ahead as a Woman in Tech.”
  128. Nosek et al., “Pervasiveness and Correlates of Implicit Attitudes and Stereotypes.”
  129. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  130. Ibid.
  131. Ibid.
  132. Ibid.
  133. Madeline E. Heilman and Julie J. Chen, “Same Behavior, Different Consequences: Reactions to Men’s and Women’s Altruistic Citizenship Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no. 3 (2005): 431–41.
  134. Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates.”
  135. Correll et al., “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?”
  136. Kieran Snyder, “The Abrasiveness Trap: High-Achieving Men and Women Are Described Differently in Reviews,” Fortune, August 26, 2014, http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias.
  137. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  138. Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias.”
  139. Snyder, “How to Get Ahead as a Woman in Tech.”
  140. Karpowitz, Mendelberg, and Shaker, “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation”; Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due”; Thomas-Hunt and Phillips, “When What You Know Is Not Enough.”
  141. Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, et al., “Selective Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations”; Snyder, “How to Get Ahead as a Woman in Tech.”
  142. Allen, Eby, Poteet, et al., “Career Benefits Associated with Mentoring for Proteges”; Catalyst, Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement.
  143. Ibid.
  144. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  145. Richard F. Martell, David M. Lane, and Cynthia Emrich, “Male-Female Differences: A Computer Simulation,” American Psychologist 51, no. 2 (1996): 157–58, http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/papers/male_female.pdf; Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias.”
  146. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  147. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  148. Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates.”
  149. Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse, “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians,” The American Economic Review 90, no. 4 (2000): 715–41.
  150. Martell, Lane, and Emrich, “Male-Female Differences.”
  151. Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias.”
  152. Mark L. Egan, Gregor Matvos, and Amit Seru, “When Harry Fired Sally: The Double Standard in Punishing Misconduct,” NBER Working Paper Series, working paper 23242 (March 2017), http://www.nber.org/papers/w23242; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards”; Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due”; Victoria L. Brescoll, Erica Dawson, and Eric Luis Uhlmann, “Hard Won and Easily Lost: The Fragile Status of Leaders in Gender-Stereotype-Incongruent Occupations,” Psychological Science 21, no. 11 (2010): 1640–42, http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/hard-won-and-easily-lost-fragile-status-leaders-gender-stereotype-incongruent-occupations.
  153. Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due.”
  154. Snyder, “How to Get Ahead as a Woman in Tech.”
  155. Ibid.
  156. Research cited by Katty Kay and Claire Shipman, “The Confidence Gap,” The Atlantic, May 2014, http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/the-confidence-gap/359815/; Haynes and Heilman, “It Had to Be You (Not Me)!”
  157. Georges Desvaux, Sandrine Devillard-Hoellinger, and Mary C. Meaney, “A Business Case for Women,” The McKinsey Quarterly, September 2008, p. 4, https://www.forbes.com/2008/10/03/business-women-economics-lead-cx_1003mckinsey.html#3ec4a3592d5d.
  158. Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  159. Women in the Workplace 2017; Heilman and Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?”; Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success.”
  160. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  161. Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  162. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Correll et al., “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?”; Weisshaar, “From Opt Out to Blocked Out.”
  163. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  164. Ibid.
  165. Ibid.
  166. Correll et al., “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?”
  167. Coltrane et al., “Fathers and Flexibility Stigma”; Rudman and Mescher, “Penalizing Men Who Request a Family Leave”; Berdahl and Moon, “Workplace Mistreatment of Middle Class Workers Based on Sex, Parenthood, and Caregiving”; Butler and Skattebo, “What Is Acceptable for Women May Not Be for Men.”
  168. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather”; Hebl, Foster, Mannix, et al., “Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination”; Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching.”
  169. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather.”
  170. Tammy Allen et al., “The Mentor's Perspective: A Qualitative Inquiry and Future Research Agenda,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 51 (August 1997): 70–89, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236344793_The_Mentor's_ Perspective_A_Qualitative_Inquiry_and_Future_Research_Agenda.
  171. Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching”; Hebl, Foster, Mannix, et al., “Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination.”
  172. C. M. Riordan, “Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions,” in G. R. Ferris, ed., Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, vol. 19 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 2000), 131–73.
  173. Catalyst, Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement; Dreher and Cox, “Race, gender, and opportunity”; Center for Talent Innovation, “The Sponsorship Dividend.”
  174. For an example, see Mozilla, “Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines,” updated November 28, 2018, https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation’.
  175. Uhlmann and Cohen, “Constructed Criteria”; Correll, “Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces.”
  176. Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, et al., “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students”; Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  177. Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke, “The Impact of Gender on the Review of Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates.”
  178. Correll, “Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces.”
  179. Uhlmann and Cohen, “Constructed Criteria”; Correll, “Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces”; Mackenzie, Wehner, and Correll, “Why Most Performance Evaluations Are Biased, and How to Fix Them.”
  180. Cecilia H. Mo, “The Consequences of Explicit and Implicit Gender Attitudes and Candidate Quality in the Calculations of Voters,” Political Behavior 37, no. 2 (2015): 357–95; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards”; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, and Ristikari, “Are leader stereotypes masculine?”
  181. Heilman and Hayes, “No Credit Where Credit Is Due.”
  182. Women in the Workplace 2018, unpublished data.
  183. Correll, “Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces.”
  184. Badal, “The Business Benefits of Gender Diversity”; Ellison and Mullin, “Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm”; Hunt, Yee, Prince, and Dixon-Fyle, Delivering Through Diversity; Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter.”
  185. Women in the Workplace 2018, unpublished data.
  186. Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  187. Eric Luis Uhlmann and Geoffrey L. Cohen, “‘I think it, therefore it’s true’: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 104, no. 2 (2007): 207–23; Sandgren, “The paradox of meritocracy”; Castilla and Benard, “The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations.”
  188. Correll and Simard, “Research: Vague Feedback Is Holding Women Back”; Juan M. Madera, Michelle R. Hebl, and Randi C. Martin, “Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences,” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 6 (Nov. 2009): 1591–99, http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0016539.
  189. Uhlmann and Cohen, “Constructed Criteria.”
  190. Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, and Ristikari, “Are leader stereotypes masculine?”; Madera, Hebl, and Martin, “Gender and letters of recommendation for academia”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  191. Nosek et al., “Pervasiveness and Correlates of Implicit Attitudes and Stereotypes”; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, and Ristikari, “Are leader stereotypes masculine?”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  192. Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Anna Beninger, “The Dynamics of Warmth and Competence Judgments, and Their Outcomes in Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior 31 (2011): 73–98; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  193. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  194. Ibid.
  195. Heilman, “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”; Ellemers, “Gender Stereotypes”; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, and Phelan, “Reactions to Vanguards.”
  196. Heilman and Chen, “Same Behavior, Different Consequences.”
  197. Allen, Eby, Poteet, et al., “Career Benefits Associated with Mentoring for Proteges.”
  198. Herminia Ibarra, “Why All Women Need a Professional Network” (2016), https://leanin.org/education/building-effective-networks; Allen, Eby, Poteet, et al., “Career Benefits Associated with Mentoring for Proteges”; Catalyst, Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement.”
  199. Rivera, “Hiring as Cultural Matching”; Audrey J. Murrell and Stacy Blake-Beard, Mentoring Diverse Leaders (New York: Routledge, 2017); Center for Talent Innovation, “The Sponsorship Dividend.”
  200. LeanIn.Org and SurveyMonkey poll, January 2018.
  201. Women in the Workplace 2018.
  202. Ibid.
  203. Hebl, Foster, Mannix, et al., “Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination”; Elizabeth R. Cole, “Intersectionality and Research in Psychology,” American Psychological Association 64, no. 3 (2009): 170–80, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/45e9/502eb6d9c792444ba6543d6ac5293b65dd1a.pdf; Emma Mishel, “Discrimination Against Queer Women in the U.S. Workforce: A Résumé Audit Study,” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 2 (2016): 1–13, http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/discrimination-against-queer-women-us-workforce-resume-audit-study.
  204. Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term “intersectionality.” See Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989, no. 1 (1989): 139–67, http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf.
  205. Nina A. Nabors, Ruth L. Hall, Marie L. Miville, et al., “Multiple Minority Group Oppression: Divided We Stand?” Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 5, no. 3 (2001): 101–5, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011652808415.
  206. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather”; Center for Talent Innovation, “The Sponsorship Dividend”; Herminia Ibarra, “Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm,” Administrative Science Quarterly 377, no. 3 (Sept. 1992): 422–47; Herminia Ibarra, “Why strategic networking is harder for women,” World Economic Forum, April 7, 2016, https://herminiaibarra.com/why-strategic-networking-is-harder-for-women.