WOMEN IN MALE-DOMINATED CAREERS: INTERACTIONS BETWEEN EARLY

CAREER EXPERIENCES OF TOKENISM AND FUTURE CAREER TRAJECTORIES

Laura Gerlach

An honors thesis submitted to the faculty of the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill

2020

Approved By:
(Shimul Melwani, Ph.D.)
 ABSTRACT
Women in Male Dominated Careers: Interactions Between Early Career Experiences of
Tokenism and Future Career Trajectories
(Under the direction of Shimul Melwani)

While the number of women in the workforce continues to increase, research

suggests their mere presence does not necessarily equate to influence within

organizations. Research also highlights a culture of psychological gender inequity which

permeates many organizations. My research aims to build on this foundation of gender

inequity research by linking early career “token” status to future career decision making.

To do so, I developed a survey targeting young professionals (5-10 years out of college),

which assessed gender inequity measures (tokenism, “bro” culture, acceptance, inclusion,

etc.) in connection to future career trajectory decisions (planned pivots, gender

consideration of new organizations, industry switches, etc.). The objective of my research

is to identify linkages between these two areas that may increase our understanding of

potential best practices for further developing inclusive organizational culture.

Through my research, I found that women in male-dominated fields were more

likely to consider gender balance of their new teams when changing jobs, compared with

women in more balanced gender environments and males in male-dominated fields.

Furthermore, I found that gender makeup predicts gender balance preferences through the

experience of tokenism.

ii
 Acknowledgments

The successful completion of this thesis was ultimately made possible by the

support I have received over the years from far more educators, friends,

and family members than I could possibly list. Thank you all. I would also like to

recognize some specific individuals for their key contributions to the completion of this

work:

• Dr. Shimul Melwani, Thesis Advisor, for your sustained guidance throughout this
process, your insightful ideals, and overall enthusiasm for my topic and its broader
implications.

• Dr. Patricia Harms, Honors Thesis Class Professor, for your tireless support of all
Honors Thesis students and for the countless times you helped me articulate what I
wanted to say throughout this whole process.

• Dr. Elizabeth Dickinson, Thesis Reader, for your willingness to share your expertise in
this field with me and for the insights you brought to the table concerning my discussion
and analysis, specifically.

• Dr. Ovul Sezer, Thesis Reader, for your excited participation in my thesis committee
and for your openness to hearing about my topic and sharing your personal experiences.

• Dr. Kim Allen, Lingmei Howell, Phil Hardy, and the Kenan Scholars program for
encouraging me to pursue original research and supporting my overall academic
development during my tenure as an undergraduate student.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents. You have always encouraged me to pursue my
interests and without your love and support, none of this would ever be possible.

iii
 Table of Contents
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………... iv

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………...v

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………vi

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1

THEORY LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………...5

Reasons for Lack of Women in Leadership Positions…………………………….5

Psychological Experience of Tokenism………………………………………….14

HYPOTHESIS…………………………………………………………………………...20

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………...21

Participants and Procedure…………………………………………………….…22

Methods……………………………………………………………………….….25

RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………...…...27

DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………34

Implications for Organizations………………………......………………………34

Opportunities for Future Research……………………………………………….40

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………...……...43

REFERENCES………………………………………...………………………………...44

APPENDIX…………………………………………………………….………………...49

iv
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Correlation of Variables Table……………………………………………….27

Table 2 4 “I”s Framework………………………………………………………….....37

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Results Overview Model………………………………………………….........19

Figure 2 Industry Breakdown of Current Employment of Survey Respondents…….......24

Figure 3 Means for Descriptive Variables……………………………………......……...29

vi
 INTRODUCTION

Despite women’s gains in educational attainment and the fact that more than 50%

of women now hold U.S. jobs (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020), men greatly

outnumber women in leadership roles in most settings, including in boardrooms, politics,

academia, law, for-profit, and nonprofit organizations. This remains an issue, even

though women have eclipsed men in the percentage of the population who have a

bachelor’s degree; indeed, according to the 2015 Census Bureau, 29.9% of men have

bachelor’s degrees as compared to 30.2% of women. This gap between men and women

is even wider in the 25-34 age group, where 37.5% of women have a bachelor’s degree

compared to only 29.5% of men. Even though more women than ever before are

advancing into leadership roles (Eagly & Carli, 2007), the numbers leave a lot to be

desired. In 2020, only 6 percent of the companies in the Standard and Poor’s 500 index

have female chief executive officers (Catalyst, 2020), and this leadership gap is also seen

in nonprofits, unions (Bryant-Anderson & Roby, 2012), the legal profession (Rikleen,

2015) and academia (American Council on Education, 2012).

According to researchers, four primary reasons lie behind the dearth of women

leaders in the workforce. First, research suggests that there is a pipeline problem, that is,

fewer qualified women are entering the workforce in the fields in which they are most

needed. Second, gender discrimination that stems from deviations from stereotypes

related to the majority group remains an issue. This discrimination can lead to evaluative

penalties (promotions, bonuses, other recognition, etc.) that accompany female

employees in unfair ways. Furthermore, hostile work environments and sexual

1
harassment, a reality for many women (Funks & Parker, 2019) are a form of

discrimination that can derail careers. A third reason centers around caregiving and

women’s choices to stay at home with their children. Indeed, balancing work and family

responsibilities is one of the most challenging obstacles for women seeking leadership

positions (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Sandberg, 2013), and it can be especially daunting for the

millions of working women raising children on their own (Hess & Kelly, 2015). Women

are usually the primary (if not the only) parent caring for children and other family

members during their peak years in the workforce and are more likely to take time off for

family commitments than men do (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). This factor

notes importantly the lack of actual influence workplaces have on major concerns

including motherhood and family. The fourth reason includes structural matters in place

which women struggle to climb organizational ladders due to a lack of social networks

which may help connect them with other influential leaders in their organization (Eagly

& Carli, 2007; Hewlett et al., 2010). All these reasons combined have led to reduced

numbers of women succeeding in major leadership positions.

These problems are especially likely in workplace environments that are skewed

toward a more masculine base. For instance, fewer women are likely to enter fields that

are perceived as male dominated. In technology, only 25 percent of employees are female

according to the National Center for Women & Information Technology (White, 2020).

They are less likely to therefore find mentors and are likely to also face more implicit

(and explicit) discrimination in these environments (Funks & Parks, 2019). While women

can experience success in male-dominated environments and roles ranging from entry-

level analyst to C-Suite positions, unique setbacks can and do emerge.

2
 In this paper, I combine these perspectives to propose that one reason for why

women may not be advancing to these leadership positions in male-dominated

environments is because their psychological experiences in these environments forces

them to alter their career trajectories. Specifically, in this thesis, I explore the effect of

women’s experiences of tokenism on future career choices. Tokenism occurs when only a

handful of members from a certain (typically disadvantaged) group occupy positions of

power (Kanter, 1977). Those people, accordingly, experience heightened visibility,

isolation by the majority, and expectations of actions within the confines of pre-defined

gender roles (Kanter, 1977). Overarchingly, this is an aversive experience in which

people consider an organization’s policies, procedures, and events as indicators of

interpretations of work context (King, Hebl, George, & Matusik, 2010). In turn, I suggest

that this experience compels women in token positions to become more concerned about

the gender balance of future jobs opportunities. By seeking more gender balanced

environments, they are likely to step away from more masculine contexts, thus reducing

the pipeline of women in these industries.

Given this set of arguments, I explore how early-career experiences in male

dominated environments influence future career choices. I propose that if a female starts

her career in a male-dominated environment, then she will select a different career

trajectory than that of her female peers in balanced environments and that of her male

peers in male-dominated environments. I assess this in a survey of 72 women and 48

men.

Throughout this thesis, I will explore various facets of career decisions connected

to these various career trajectories. There might be countless factors which go into one

3
decision, let alone the countless decisions individuals make every day and every year

which influence where they end up. By looking at experiences of tokenism specifically, I

was able to see a certain important facet of those decisions.

4
 LITERATURE REVIEW

Companies and the media heavily focus on the importance of women in the

workplace as evidenced by colorful pamphlets and brochures gracing offices and covers

of magazines. Yet, research shows this awareness has not yet yielded actions. In this

section, I will discuss the major existing bodies of research that explain why workplaces

experience an exodus of women, especially around the time they reach middle

management roles (Schnieders, 2017), by focusing on the issues that are especially stark

for women in male dominated environments. I build on this work to then describe how

women’s psychological experiences of tokenism contribute to some of these effects.

Eventually, I aim to draw connections between these two disparate bodies of research.

I. Reasons Behind the Lack of Women in Key Leadership Positions

In this section, I address four main reasons why women struggle to ascend to the

leadership positions to which they strive. The four main reasons are as follows a problem

with the number of women in the career pipeline, disparities in treatment of non-

stereotypical or “with the majority” behaviors, the challenge of balancing

motherhood/family with careers and the lack of social networks with the right people

who will help vault them to the next level. I also look at how those challenges become

exasperated for women in male-dominated work environments.

5
1. Lack of Women Entering the Career Pipeline

First, the lack of women in leadership positions is often attributed to the small

number of women applicants. This “pipeline” problem is often said to start with

educational choices. If women do not seek degrees in historically masculine subjects,

they often do not end up seeking jobs in those areas either. Indeed, according to the

Institute for Women’s Policy Research, fields such as carpentry, construction, and

automotive services have so few women it can be challenging to even evaluate other

metrics such as salary (Hegewisch, Phil, Liepmann, Hayes, & Hartmann, 2010). Research

showcases a paradoxical relationship between gender equity in countries and women’s

pursuit of STEM careers. In countries where women felt more empowered to do whatever

they wanted, they tended to be less financially motivated to choose STEM careers (Stoet

and Geary, 2018). Stoet and Geary’s study looked at students across countries and

females outperform males in 2 out of 3 countries in science and science-related fields and

in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had

enrolled in school.

This lack of pursuit of education in certain areas led by women leads them to not

pursue jobs and therefore to never enter the pipeline at all. Maria Chandoha, President &

CEO of Charles Schwab Investment Management said she did not even consider entering

finance due to a lack of knowledge about the field. Others echo her sentiment (Chandoha,

2017). If a lack of emphasis exists at the entrance of the pipeline, it becomes challenging

to even find women to fill leadership positions down the line.

6
Evaluative Penalties & Women’s Career Progression

Second, implicit and explicit discrimination against women may lead to career-

limiting evaluative penalties. A “think-manager, think-male” stereotype often underlies

these penalties. In 1996, several researchers compared the relationship between sex role

stereotypes and characteristics perceived as necessary for management success as

determined by both male and female management students in Japan and China. (Schein,

Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996). When their results were compared with those of

management students in the U.S., Germany, and Great Britain, they found that

characteristics deemed important for successful middle managers were more commonly

associated with males. This study confirmed the idea that the “think-manager, think-male

stereotype crosses cultural and political boundaries (Schein et al., 1996).

Research shows that women received lower ratings when the proportion of

women in the group was small, even after male-female cognitive ability, psychomotor

ability, education, and experience differences were controlled (Sackett, Dubois, & Noe,

1991). The same does not appear to be true for men. If the proportion of the men in the

group were smaller, their ratings were not also proportionally smaller (Sackett et al.,

1991). In addition, people are often penalized for promoting diversity. Hekman, Johnson,

Foo, and Yang address the idea that when people (especially leaders) focus on promoting

diversity in lieu of other concerns, that decision can affect the ways in which they are

evaluated. These researchers found that leaders were often penalized in the form of lower

performance ratings when they promoted diversity valuing behavior or demographic

balance in organizations (2006).

7
 The central reason behind this penalization is perception of competency, or lack

thereof. Both external and internal influences raise the question if focus on diversity is

misplaced which may contribute to lower ratings and confidence in their abilities as

leaders and decision-makers. Also, important to note in this context is the idea that

having a woman in a leadership position (even if the cohort is male dominated), does not

equate with standardized evaluative measures. The logic behind the idea of getting

women to high power and high-status positions follows the idea that they then can help

others by leveraging their position. This idea creates dangerous side effects by impeding

the advancement of others (Ellemers, Rink, Derks, & Ryan, 2012). A classic scenario of

taking one action with desired effects when the opposite ends up happening emerges

here.

In many organizations, subconscious biases do not operate alone, and women are

also discriminated against as well as sexually harassed. These traumatic experiences can

significantly govern how people approach their careers and how they are evaluated. Pew

Research conducted a rather robust survey from 2011-2017 which assessed

discrimination, sexual harassment, and other factors connected with workplace equity.

According to this study, 50% of women in STEM jobs cited experience of gender-related

discrimination in the workplace which was higher than women in non-STEM careers

(41%) and men in STEM (19%) (Funks & Parks, 2019). Women in these STEM roles

also were about 3 times more likely than men to cite at least one experience of sexual

harassment at work, 22% and 7%, respectively (Funks & Parks, 2019). Women are more

likely than men to cite discrimination in hiring and promotions as a major reason why

there are not more women working in STEM (48% vs. 29%) (Funks & Parks, 2019).

8
People in this survey also cited gender as a barrier to hiring and promotions and as a

contributing factor towards lower pay. The fact of the matter is the playing field clearly

does not appear to be fair.

3. Individual and Societal Expectations of Work-Family Balances

Third, caregiving responsibilities outside of the workplace often play a major role

in career outcomes. Social role theory would suggest that women are expected to assume

the role of primary caregiver, especially when they become mothers (Frone, 2003).

Differences in perception of male and female leadership may come from parental

obligations and expectations (Wojtalik, 2006), marital expectations (Becker & Moen,

1999, Livingstone, 2011), or, more broadly, from societal expectations (Frone, 2003).

Parental attitudes can and may persist throughout someone’s entire career

(Wojtalik, 2006). If parents choose to enforce or exemplify certain male or female

characteristics, their children are more likely to follow suit (Wojtalik, 2006). Women’s

career ambitions often conflict with perceptions of traditional family roles (i.e.

motherhood) outlined by perceptions of male coworkers and bosses (Turco, 2010).

Ogden, McTavish, and McKean (2006) concur by suggesting that women often feel like

they cannot ascend to certain roles solely based on their status as mothers. For many

women, the personal costs of upper level management careers are too high to justify

pursuing leadership positions (Ogden et al., 2006). To further accentuate this point,

fathers tend to earn more money than childless men (known as the “fatherhood bonus”).

This “bonus” is highest for white, married, college educated men (Budig, 2014). While a

difference exists between fathers and mothers, other more disadvantaged groups (race,

9
etc), contribute to a broader gap. This combination of a “fatherhood bonus” and

“motherhood penalty” adds to the divide, which is important to note.

The broader discussion concerning marital and familial relations does not only

have to do with women. In a relationship, both parties must be involved with balancing

work and family. On a broader scale, work-family balance proves challenging to define.

In a way, this balance “sets a vague notion that work and family life are somehow

integrated or harmonious” (Frone, 2003, p. 145). Furthermore, Frone’s exploration of

literature assessing work and family balance fails to create broad overarching models due

to the complex and dynamic nature of individual relations and situations. The debate

about life at home in congruence with life at work has escalated with the emergence of

dual earners in which both people in a couple work. According to research conducted by

Becker and Moen, partners inevitably must make three decisions to not let work encroach

on personal lives (1999). These decisions include placing limits, having a one-job, one-

career marriage, and trading off. While significant time has passed since 1999, similar

discussions and concessions must emerge as no one can do it all.

More specifically, women cite a plethora of reasons why they do or do not choose

to further pursue their careers after beginning families. For some, it might boil down to a

math problem, describing the scenario as a “childcare calculus where they factored in

their salary, the cost of childcare, their long-term career prospects, and the degree to

which their working would negatively affect their family” (Schank & Wallace, 2016). For

others, it’s about pursuing their passion while making time for their families. Some

women described having kids as an unanticipated switch towards them wanting to stay at

home and focus on them (Schank & Wallace, 2016).

10
4. Gender Disparities in Access to Social Networks

Last, women’s lack of advancement may derive from differences in social

networks. Social networks are essential for professional advancement – yet these

networks do not follow a one size fits all policy. Research shows that men and women

need different structures to their networks just as people utilize networks in varying ways

throughout their careers. In order to compare two groups at similar life stages by looking

at variations in gender preferences for social networks, researchers studied male and

female MBAs. The male MBAs preferred being central in their networks. By occupying

central positions, they felt as though they could be in tune with various “hubs” which

might not otherwise be connected. (Yang, Chawla, & Uzzi, 2019). Women also enjoy and

centrality in networks but really hone in on developing a tight knit circle of female

contacts in which they can rely. The aforementioned networks predominately refer to

peer-peer relationships. However, hierarchical relationships also exist and contribute to

broader extensions of networks.

Hierarchical relationships (i.e. between bosses and more juvenile employees)

have a profound influence on perceptions of the company or career experience. These

hierarchical relationships may be strictly established through the company or might

evolve between two parties with similar interests (Ryan, King, Adis, Gulick, Peddie, &

Hargraves, 2012).

Heilman and Parks-Stamm (2007) describe how women in self-described token

environments receive more support from male superiors than female superiors. Survey

results show that female supervisors may be more likely to withhold support from their

11
same gender coworkers in order to achieve maximum differentiation in the workplace

(Ryan et al., 2012). Gender tokenism contributes to a reversal of normally observed

female in-group favoritism (Ryan et al., 2012). Unfortunately, sometimes people are so

inwardly focused, they fail to recognize how their words and actions can impact others.

Without upper level management support, middle management stages often showcase

increasing attrition rates of women (Sahadi, 2019). Based on research Sahadi references,

women lack the confidence they need to foster beneficial mentor and hierarchical

relationships. They need help clearing that hurdle. After all, once a woman has

successfully overcome stereotypes, at a very senior level, she may be more likely to

support subordinates (Block, Koch, Liberman, Merriweather, & Roberson, 2011). The

business world must understand how best to encourage all young employees – no matter

their individual characteristics.

5. Specific Male-Dominated Environments Challenge

Women have shared challenges across industries when attempting to reach

leadership positions, but women in male-dominated careers experience those challenges

more intensely. For the career pipeline, women wanting to enter careers dominated by

men may feel as though they lack the “masculine” characteristics necessary to be

successful in those roles (Turco, 2010). If women are not incentivized to enter lower level

roles in male-dominated environments, they certainly will not be incentivized for

leadership roles either. In terms of evaluative measures, it can depend on the relationship

between the evaluator and the one being evaluated. Women leaders are likely to be

harsher critics because they fought tooth and nail to get to their position. They do not

have the bandwidth to handle all scenarios of discrimination, lack of acceptance, etc. of

12
their younger counterparts. Women must navigate the challenging terrain of balancing

life at home and careers in similar ways no matter if the work environment is male-

dominated or not. Finally, if women do not have access to the social networks they need

to succeed (i.e. a close group of women on which to professionally rely), they will suffer

from an outcomes point of view.

Hence in my research, I will explore how women in these environments respond

by altering their career trajectories. By focusing on early-career experiences, I explore

how women whose first jobs are in male-dominated environments, are more likely to

consider gender when they move jobs. This focus on gender is likely to mean that they

exit industries that are dominantly male, thus further leading to the pipeline problem.

I explore this by understanding how women’s psychological experiences of

playing the part of a token drive these decisions. In my review of literature and theory, I

noticed the lack of research on connections between minority (“token”) status and its

effects in an organization and factors affecting career decision making.

13
II. Women in Male-Dominated Environments: The Psychological Experience of

Tokenism

Conceptualizing Tokenism

In 1977, Rosabeth Kanter introduced the idea of tokenism in her groundbreaking

book, Men and Women of the Corporation. Tokenism occurs when only a handful of

members from a certain (typically disadvantaged) group occupy positions of power

(Kanter, 1977). Kanter’s work continues to be cited by many seeking further

understanding of tokenism and its specific effects. Kanter (1977) described 3 negative

processes related directly to “token” status including: enhanced visibility in the firm as

correlated with increased performance pressure, unnecessary exaggeration of gender

differences, and constraints women felt through preexisting gender norms.

First, tokens experience greater visibility than their majority peers. Their

distinctiveness makes them salient (Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978) and

visible. This increased visibility creates performance pressures on the token. Second,

tokens are often excluded or isolated, from the majority group. Differences between the

token and the majority group thus become exaggerated. Third, tokens are stereotyped

according to their group membership, and often become trapped into whatever role is

expected of them.

As a result, research has shown that being a female token has two major negative

consequences, one external in terms of actual evaluations received from others, and one

internal, that involves individuals own self-perceptions and behaviors. First, female

tokens are likely to do worse (or are evaluated as doing worse) than male tokens. In

14
research on the leveraged buyout (LBO) industry that is largely male-dominated, Turco

(2010) described that workers were supposed to meet the “image” of an ideal worker

(Turco, 2010). The characteristics of an ideal worker in this industry each have a

distinctly masculine component which then hurts women. Because token status augments

stereotyping (Biernat & Vescio, 1993) differential stereotypes regarding men and women

are highlighted within a token context, and these stereotypes are likely to have different

implications for women and men (Cohen & Swim, 1995). Because of men’s privileged

social status and stereotype of dominance and competence, they will likely benefit from

token status, as observed in some research in the medical field where male nurses who

were tokens did not face career limitations, but female physicians did (Floge, 1986).

Furthermore, in many cases male tokens fared better, emerging as leaders, whereas

female tokens almost never achieved similar successful outcomes (Craig & Sherif, 1986).

Second, deriving from increased pressure and visibility, research also suggests

that tokenism is more detrimental to women than to men because it reduces their self-

confidence (Lenney, 1981; Lenney & Gold, 1982). In groups, for instance, token women

never identified themselves as group leaders, although solo men did 30% of the time

(Crocker & McGraw, 1984). In addition, tokens remembered less about a group task than

did majority group members, suggesting that they were more preoccupied with self-

presentational concerns at the expense of performing the task at hand (Lord & Saenz,

1985). These concerns even led to worse performance (Saenz, 1994). A study of U.S.

Army captains attending a leadership training school highlights this effect in stark relief.

Mixed-sex members of work groups (with or without tokens) evaluated each other and

themselves on a highly gender-stereotyped dimension: leadership competence. The

15
authors found that token women ranked themselves more negatively than did their male

counterparts, and this effect remained throughout the duration of the leadership course.

However, non-token did not differ in terms of their assessments from their male

counterparts (Biernat, Crandall, Young, Kobrynowicz, & Halpin 1998).

If women feel this way in male-dominated environments, the experience of being

a token will cause them to seek spaces where they are not visible, where there are gender

expectations and where they have better opportunities for success. They are also likely to

look for environments where they experience less isolation, etc. By exploring the role of

tokenism, I thus explore how being a “token” may introduce new drivers in decision

making and, as a result, career trajectories. My research aims to identify key metrics

across all stages of women’s careers, with a specific focus on tokenism, which impact

their career decisions, perceptions, and progression.

At times, people become “token” representatives for the purpose of bringing

diverse thoughts to the table. No matter how well-intentioned “token” status might be, the

effects of it may not be beneficial for all. Tokenism can create ambiguity regarding

intergroup structure. While it may elicit perceptions of equality by demonstrating

opportunities for individual mobility, there are only a few individuals who are able to

move through these boundaries, therefore reflecting scarcity of mobility opportunities for

members of disadvantaged groups (Schmitt, Spoor, Danaher, & Branscombe, 2009;

Wright, 1997). In a meta-analysis, researchers summarize how “psychological climate

literature reveals that a staggering number and variety of dimensions have been

measured, easily demonstrating the difficulty in identifying the construct’s perimeter”

(Parker et al., 2003, p. 392). The struggle to define a standardized set of metrics is

16
important to recognize because of the subjective nature of this body of research. The

conclusions in the meta-analysis span a wide range of metrics which increase their

individual validity. The feelings tokenism evokes do not just disappear. They linger. The

question remains, for who do they linger, for how long, and how much they weigh on

someone in the long term.

Tokenism and Implications on My Research Question

My research question seeks to understand the connection between early career

experiences of gender inequity, specifically tokenism, on future career trajectories. As

mentioned before, tokenism originated as a proportional measure as compared with the

total population of a group, organization, or institution. However, feelings of tokenism

are not always just connected to strict numerical figures. People express these feelings of

tokenism as feelings of isolation and separation from the group and having feelings of

lack of support in the ideas they bring to the table. Ultimately, tokenism is an idea which

comes about from being in the minority group. However, every person who occupies a

minority position does not feel excluded from the rest of the group. Fitting in with the

group is not dependent on what makes someone different, but on what makes them

similar.

We, thanks to the work of researchers, know the effects of tokenism exist, at least

in the moment. We do not fully understand what happens to people years down the line if

they experience tokenism early on in their careers. I sought to grab on to at least a part of

measuring that effect. Although challenging to pin down, my overarching prediction was

17
that those beginning career experiences, over anything else, drive decision-making.

Furthermore, my prediction was that tokenism experiences early on would affect career

moves – whether those be gender balances of new organizations or new teams, accepting

pay differences for more beneficial scenarios, or making career pivots while pursuing

meaningful change.

18
Model Overview

The model for my research findings can be broken down simply. After

considering many possibilities of what to use for the independent and dependent variables

for this research, I decided to assess the connection between gender and consideration of

gender balance in new teams beyond their first job (in job 2, job 3, etc.). To add to this

model, tokenism serves as a mediating variable for the situation. This model with the one

mediating variable appears in various other research papers – often connected to

psychology. I have outlined my model below.

Figure 1: Results Overview Model

Tokenism

Gender Consideration of
Women in Male-Dominated Gender Balance in
Men in Male-Dominated
Women in Mixed
New Teams

19
 RESEARCH OVERVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

My research question seeks to understand the connection between early career

experiences of gender inequity, specifically tokenism, on future career trajectories. As

mentioned before, tokenism originated as a proportional measure as compared with the

total population of a group, organization, or institution. However, feelings of tokenism

are not always just connected to strict numerical figures. Tokenism has been linked to

worsened performance, discrimination, a decreased self-confidence, feelings of isolation

and separation from the group and a lack of support in the ideas they bring to the table.

While these experiences help us understand the proximal effects of tokenism, we do not

fully understand what happens to individuals’ career choices after they experience

tokenism early on in their careers. Although challenging to pin down, my overarching

prediction was that those beginning career experiences, over anything else, drive

decision-making. Furthermore, my prediction was that tokenism experiences early on

would affect career moves, such that women in male-dominated environments who saw

themselves as tokens would then seek jobs that were more gender balanced. Thus, I

predict:

H1: Gender makeup predicts gender balance preferences

H2: Gender makeup predicts gender balance preferences through the experience of

tokenism.

20
 DATA METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this section is to outline the methods I employed to answer the

following research question: what extent do tokenism and decision-making processes

affect career trajectories? I specifically wanted to look at the experiences of women in

male-dominated fields — such as finance — to understand how their experiences and

backgrounds deviated from those of their peers. In this data methodology, I will outline

preliminary steps to inform my survey development, steps concerning actual survey

creation and dissemination, and steps for data analysis.

Pre-Survey Pilot Interviews

Prior to developing survey questions, I interviewed 6 MBA students to understand

their experiences as women in male-dominated business professions. My survey targeted

both women and men who received their undergraduate degrees between five and ten

years ago. Since the average age of Kenan-Flagler MBAs is around 27-28, they were the

perfect group to initially interview. In these interviews, I reached out to a group of these

women and spoke to them about their career perceptions, feelings of tokenism in the

workplace, and thoughts behind their choice to pursue an MBA. The themes which arose

from these interviews guided survey questions to focus more heavily on specific

characteristics of decision making in the context of token (or non-token) status.

21
Participants and Procedure

I disseminated the survey to both women and men around 5 to10 years out of

school by reaching out to preexisting Kenan-Flagler and LinkedIn networks. While,

ideally, it would be great to get a broader sample, I believed Kenan-Flagler graduates had

a broad enough reach where they could describe different experiences. Kenan-Flagler has

a large database of contact information, which allowed me to establish a connection with

some of these people who have gone on to a broad variety of careers and fields.

By reaching out to both men and women, I planned to compare responses between

men and women who began in male-dominated organizations and between women who

began in male-dominated careers and women who began in careers with more balanced

male-female ratios. This enabled me to create three main groups of participants so that I

could compare my target group of women in male-dominated environments to the other

two comparison groups. A comparison of women versus men in primarily male

environments would enable me to understand effects of how female tokens start to seek

more gender balanced workplaces, while the comparison to women in gender-balanced

environments enabled me to confirm that all women are not actively and consciously

seeking gender balance in their jobs; rather only female tokens are sensitive to this

particular issue.

The Institutional Review Board at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

exempted the study on Wednesday, February 5, 2020. Once the approval went through, I

opened the survey to responses from February 11, 2020 through February 21, 2020. For

analysis, my target response range was 80+ and received 130 responses, 92 of which

were complete. While I recognize this sample (n) was not very large, I know it provided

22
enough responses for analysis as other researchers (ex. King, Hebl, George, & Matusik,

2010) conducted surveys with similar sample sizes which yielded significant results.

23
Demographic Breakdown of Sample

My final sample had 71% female and 29% male, which span those 3 groups.

Respondents were 74% white, 5% Hispanic/Latino, 5% Black, 13% Asian, and 3% other.

73% of the sample had completed their bachelor’s degree, 16% had also completed an

MBA and 8% had completed another professional or advanced degree. Furthermore,

since my survey targeted people around 5-10 years out of school, 81% of respondents fell

in the 26-30 age range, 13% in the 20-25 age range, and 4% in the 31-35 age range.

Similarly, 69% of respondents had 4-6 years of work experience, 23% had 7-10 years of

work experience and 9% had 0-3 years of work experience. The industry breakdown of

survey respondents can be shown in Figure 1.

Figure 2: Industry Breakdown of Current Employment of Survey Respondents

24
Measures

Demographics.

Participants responded to basic demographic information including gender, race,

educational background and age. To conclude the section, I asked about career length and

what industry the participant worked.

Independent Variable: Gender Makeup of first job.

Participants were asked to describe the gender composition of their first job out of

college. I provided them with four options (mostly men, mostly women, an even mix of

men and women, and I didn’t notice/I didn’t know).

Mediator: Experiences of tokenism.

I further asked about feelings of acceptance, inclusion (Pearce & Randel, 2004),

discrimination (Reid, 1987), “bro culture” (Glick, Berdahl, & Alonso, 2018) and

tokenism (Kobrynowicz and Branscobe, 1997) in order to have several measures of

gender inequity. The primary measure of tokenism that I used in the paper is a 1-item

measure that directly asked participants if they felt as if they were ‘token’ representatives

of their gender in their respective companies.

Dependent Variable: Career Choices.

I then asked participants if they had changed jobs and the extent to which they considered

the gender composition of their new teams or new organizations. In the survey, this

25
question fell under the third block where I asked specific questions about jobs related to

subsequent jobs after someone’s first one. The specific question which served as the

dependent variable asked if the respondent considered the gender balance of their new

team in their new role through a 7-item Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to

strongly disagree.

26
 RESULTS

In this section, I will discuss the results from my analysis of survey responses. I

outline the correlations between variables, ANOVA test of my first hypothesis, and

mediation test and analysis of my second hypothesis.

Correlations Between Variables

Before I began any other analysis, I first assessed correlations between dependent

and independent variables. See Table 1 for correlations among all study variables. The

comparison of women in male-dominated organizations to men in male-dominated

organizations is significantly correlated (at the p < .01) level with tokenism as well as

gender balance of new teams. The presence of tokenism is also significantly correlated

with gender balance of new teams.

Table 1: Correlation of Variables Table

Table of Correlation Values for Main Variables

1 2 3 4
1. Women in Male-Dominated
Organizations
vs. Women in Mixed Organizations 1 -0.549** 0.014 0.198
2. Women in Male-Dominated
Organizations
vs. Men in Male-Dominated
Organizations -0.549 1 -0.342 -0.388
3. Tokenism 0.014 -0.342 1 0.538
4. Gender Balance of New Team 0.198 -0.388 -0.538 1

27
 I conducted my data analysis through three primary stages. First, I looked at

variables through descriptive statistics. Then, I conducted a one-way ANOVA. In this

case, an ANOVA was a good idea to assess the differences between means for each of

the three conditions to test for Hypothesis 1. I then conducted a mediation by placing

tokenism in the “mediator” position. Through these analyses, I came to three main

conclusions which I will elaborate on throughout this section.

Descriptive Variables: Tokenism

Beginning with a look at the descriptive statistics calculated through SPSS, I first

looked at the tokenism variable. The presence of tokenism was the highest in women in

male-dominated careers with a mean of 3.81. Experiences of tokenism were next most

prevalent in women in mixed careers with a mean of 2.87 and then finally less prevalent

in men in male-dominated careers as represented by a lower mean of 1.96. Of note,

tokenism was related to males in male-dominated careers, they had a smaller standard

deviation meaning their experiences of tokenism did not have as wide of a range. This

data yielded predicted results. Since women in male-dominated careers are already in the

minority, their experience of tokenism ends up being stronger.

Descriptive Variables: Gender Balance of New Teams

With respect to descriptive variables related to the dependent variable, gender

balance of the new team, once again, women in male-dominated fields take that into

consideration the most when switching jobs. Women in male-dominated fields top the

other two conditions with a mean of 4.61, but it is almost on par with a mean of 4.50.

Men in male-dominated fields consider gender balance of new teams less, however, with

28
a mean of 3.05, they still consider it somewhat. For these descriptive variables all the

means fall on a scale of 1-7 correlating with the Likert scale which these questions were

asked. The graph below illustrates the means of each condition for each descriptive

variable. Women in male-dominated fields is Condition 1, Women in balanced fields is

Condition 2, and men in male-dominated fields is Condition 3.

Figure 3: Means for Descriptive Variables

29
Test of Hypothesis 1

I conducted a one-way ANOVA with pairwise contrasts to assess whether women

in predominantly male environments would factor in the gender balance of their teams

when switching jobs (M=4.61, SD=1.79), in comparison to men in similar masculine

environments (M=3.05, SD=1.69, t(62)=2.86, p<.01) but not compared to women in

gender-balanced environments (M=450, SD=1.66, t(62)= .22,, ns), [F(2, 62) = 5.523, p =

0.006]. Thus, I found only partial support for this hypothesis.

Test of Hypothesis 2: Mediation

I started by exploring the effect of gender makeup on tokenism experiences. I

conducted a one-way ANOVA with pairwise contrasts to assess whether women in

predominantly male environments experienced token status (M=3.81, SD=1.72), in

comparison to men in similar masculine environments (M=1.96, SD=1.40, t (73)=3.79,

p<.01) but not compared to women in gender-balanced environments (M=2.87, SD=1.75,

t (73)= 2.02,, p<.05), [F(2, 62) = 5.523, p = 0.006] (see Table 2).

Because I found a statistically significant result, I then conducted mediation

analyses to test Hypothesis 2. I decided to perform a statistical mediation analysis with a

multi categorical independent variable (gender composition in organizations). This test is

designed to compare each of our conditions to every other condition. This test will

compare the women in male-dominated organizations conditions and the women in

mixed organization conditions. It will also compare the women in male-dominated

conditions with the men in male-dominated organizations conditions. It will also compare

30
the women in mixed organizations and males in male-dominated organizations

conditions.

All mediation analyses were performed using Model 4 in the PROCESS macro.

Within the PROCESS macro, I used the multicategorical variable option for the

independent variable (condition). This analysis converted the three conditions into two

dummy coded variables representing comparisons of women in male-dominated

environments to women in mixed gender environments and comparisons of women in

male-dominated environments to men in mixed environments. The significance of the

direct and relative indirect effects was tested using 5,000 bootstrap resamples and a 95%

bias-corrected confidence interval (CI). The model employed the three conditions of

women in male-dominated business environments, women in mixed environments, and

men in male-dominated business environments as the independent variable (X), tokenism

and feelings of tokenism elicited by the depiction as the mediator (M), and the

consideration of gender balance in new teams (second job and beyond) evaluations as the

dependent variable (Y). Given the multicategorical nature of the X variable, experimental

condition, the relative indirect and direct effects can be interpreted as mean differences

on the outcome variable evaluations (Hayes & Preacher, 2014).

In these analyses, I found support for Hypothesis 2 as the indirect effect of being a

female in a male-dominated environment (versus a gender balanced environment) on new

team gender preferences (-.56 (.27), 95% CI [-1.12, -.05]) through feelings of tokenism.

This same pattern of significant indirect effects was seen for the differences in being a

female in a male-dominated environment (versus a man in a male-dominated

31
environment) on new team gender preferences (-1.00 (.36), 95% CI [-.82, -.41] through

feelings of tokenism.

32
Key Results Takeaways

As mentioned above, three key results emerged. The first conclusion is that in

analyses which compare across groups of people, women in male-dominated

environments saw themselves as more of a token than women in mixed environments and

men in male-dominated environments. The second key finding is that women in male-

dominated environments were more likely to consider gender balance of new teams (in

new roles) compared to men in male-dominated environments and women in gender-

balanced environments, but in line with my third finding, these differences only occurred

when women in these masculine environments characterized themselves as tokens.

Tokenism, and the feelings of tokenism also add to consideration of gender when

thinking about career pivots. The status of being a female in a male-dominated

environment coupled with feelings associated with tokenism increased the chances of

gender being a consideration.

33
 DISCUSSION
In this section, I will discuss several other key findings from the survey, highlight

the importance of this research, suggest implications for organizations, and describe

opportunities for future research. This study aimed to fill a metaphorical brick in the

already established wall of gender inequity and its influence in the office. Academic

research provides a solid basis in fact for identifying problems. Here, I wanted to provide

a few suggestions for how firms/organizations can leverage this research for improved

business environments and to encourage and support their employees to reach their goals.

Overview of Key Results

The key results from survey analysis highlight intersections between gender of

individuals, their broader work and environment and how the combination of those

factors influences future decisions related to that research. The overarching objective I

had when embarking on this project was to connect experiences in early careers of either

being in male-dominated or mixed environments with how individuals looked at new

career opportunities and potential pivots. The results satisfied this objective by

highlighting how these connections manifested themselves. Women originally in male-

dominated environments were more likely to consider the gender balance of new teams in

their new roles. In exploring why, the mediating variable in this study was the experience

of tokenism – one that may not necessarily affect everyone in the same scenario in the

same way. In general, being a token may have major effects on someone’s ability to

operate successfully outside of being considered a representative for their population. The

feeling of tokenism can create scenarios where someone feels completely on their own –

34
in terms of decisions, philosophies on how to go about certain tasks, and interests at a

broader level. Eventually, that sense of isolation may very well cause someone to change

their situation to escape that feeling and to at least feel that a few are on their side or can

understand and support their perspective.

The central “why” question which drove my research was two pronged. First, I

wanted to find out where the gaps were in this body of research concerning tokenism (if

there were any). Secondly, I wanted to see if I could devise a study that would target

those gaps. Ultimately, my goal for this research was to complete a senior year project

but also to take this information a step further outside academic discourse. I sought to

provide information I discovered to companies or organizations to turn research into

practical outcomes. If we, as a society, and as a business world understand the root causes

of certain issues, we can optimize solutions.

I found my research that early career experiences of varied gender composition

can and does drive future career decision-making. In this case, I sought to create a link

between first stepping into the workplace and then beginning on the more direct path

towards leadership roles. Right now, when companies recruit, they have programs

specifically targeted towards “diverse” groups which they hope highlight strengths of the

organization to attract the crème de la crème. While special interest groups exist in some

firms where employees can gather and share experiences, they happen outside the regular

activities and work. Instead of being intertwined with the office and office culture those

programs are often “optional” extras. The need for a wholly encompassing and

transformative culture may provide the push people need to see the values in their current

and future potential contributions to that workplace.

35
How Organizations Can Respond to Results

I would propose organizations consider a basic four-step framework to best

encourage and support all employees, regardless of their gender identity, throughout all

stages of their career. The four steps I suggest here can hopefully inform processes for

firms either through this framework or through another kind of derivation. The four steps

are as follows: identify potential, illuminate strong performances to continue and weaker

performances to reassess, institute new programs, and clearly illustrate successes and

failures. Many women leave organizations due to experiences of tokenism, due to

diminished beliefs in their own capabilities and feeling of misfit. If firms can identify

these scenarios, they may well be able to not only retain talent, but also to watch that

talent blossom. The table below provides a visual as an example for steps for action for

organizations.

36
Table 3: Steps Towards Organizational Success by Supporting Tokens

Steps Specific Suggestions

1. Identify potential top contributors and ·Figure out how to measure engagement --

strongly invest in them • Observe interns and employees to

see those who express a strong
desire to learn and find out what
drives those people

• Come up with stricter methods of

evaluation of that engagement
(ex. How many questions asked,
interest in topics, initiative in
meetings, etc).

• Assess engagement in everyday

projects

• Create enhanced
mentorship/sponsorship programs
with people with similar paths
(these may be other women who
took similar steps or even men
with common interests) or even
those with different paths but
personal commonalities to test the
efficacy of various relationships.

37
2. Illuminate strong performances to • Create a best practice guide (with
contributions from multiple sources)
continue and weaker performances to to set standards for performance –
make it clear these are firm wide
reassess
expectations and make inclusion a
factor in performance

• Have each employee have regular

check ins with both peers and bosses
to praise progress and identify issues
early. These check ins may reduce
the chances of people leaving firms
without leadership ever
understanding why

• Ask individuals directly how the

firm could be supportive and what
they would need to get to the next
level. Personalization may be the
key to retaining top talent.

3. Institute and/or improve programs • Create programs which foster both

horizontal and vertical relationships
within the firm and create many
combinations of those because there
is no clear “right” pairing.

• To evaluate the efficacy of corporate

programs, disseminate pre and post
assessments to see if
individuals/employees receive and
retain desired messaging.

• Solicit specific thoughts on current

programs from the people in them
whether than presuming things –
hearing from actual people is best.

38
 4. Illustrate successes and failures • Create a plan for how to quantify
both work performance and
performance/interest in other
activities (women’s networks,
mentorship programs, etc.).
Incentives in terms of higher
possibility of promotions, bonuses,
etc. may drive interest in programs
now seen as “extracurriculars”

• Set higher level standards to force

other companies to match that same
standard. An industry-wide, higher-
level treatment of everyone,
including tokens, may better
contribute to elevated firm culture.

Opportunities for Future Research

This research provides a link between early career experiences and various

decision-making procedures on the path towards high-level leadership positions.

Additionally, this research shows that feelings of tokenism further exacerbate the need to

consider factors such as gender in subsequent career positions. Just as people consider

factors including pay, geographical location, type of work, mission of the company, etc.,

when making the pivot, they also consider the gender balance of new organizations and

new teams. This research further shows that both men and women consider the

advantages of having more gender balanced teams, which came as a surprise.

Future research could study the effects of firm efforts on reducing feelings of

tokenism early in people’s careers. Some firms have taken large steps towards inclusion

39
on their teams, both inside and outside the office. More extensive research could

hopefully shed some light on companies acting more proactively, and those not, to see if

current efforts are making a difference or companies need to pivot in strategy.

While my study focused specifically on tokenism, additional research could

assess other moderating variables. If programs or initiatives focused on reducing those

negative characteristics and encouraging positive characteristics, businesses would most

likely see success from a leadership perspective as well as a profit-perspective. For

instance, allies and advocates of diversity and inclusion might alter women’s experiences

of tokenism. Both men and women can be the catalyst for improving firm experience.

When one mentor encourages stepping up to the plate, that could increase mentee morale

and incentivize them to strive for different roles than they would otherwise.

Research could explore the “pivot” effect in which one person or event caused a

change in career trajectory. Would many people say it did? When I interviewed the

MBAs, some described their office environments as very “bro-like” and not conducive to

doing work in the way they were looking. For some, this caused them to want to depart

their roles and pursue new ones. For others, a single male boss/executive encouraged

them to assert themselves and to find their place, proving that culture can change. Turco

began delving into this topic by looking at two different token groups – black men and

women. He found that black men did not feel like tokens because they could talk about

“sports” and other “guy things” (Turco, 2010).

Further research may shed a light on exactly how tokenism manifests itself in the

workplace. Questions to be answered may include: do women (even if in the minority)

40
feel more supported and part of the team if they feel they can get along with their

coworkers and bosses in both professional and social contexts? Are there still underlying

factors where it seems that tokenism will have a detrimental effect regardless of

company/firm policy? These research questions, and subsequently further studies, can

help pinpoint exactly where the key focus needs to be. While encouraging more women

to enter these pipelines, additional measures may prove to be powerful contributors as

well.

41
 CONCLUSION

The issue of gender in the workplace is not a new issue, nor is there one direct

path towards successful implementation of broad-based policies which work for

everyone. Research has looked at gender and gender composition of organizations both to

assess individual impacts and broader organizational impacts. In fact, Mackey, Roth,

Iddekinge, and Mcfarland conducted a crucial meta-analysis investigating the connection

between gender tokenism and job performance. In this analysis, the researchers conclude

that it does not appear that career success, as reflected through performance reviews and

other metrics, directly relates to male or female dominated workplaces (2019). Meta-

analyses such as these sound the call for necessary action.

In general, people of all genders and at all levels of their career recognize the need

for inclusion as well as the shortcomings of current efforts. In order to progress in a

productive and positive manner, everyone must leverage their own experiences and

knowledge to understand the breadth of the situation. By encouraging widespread

participation, the hope is that people benefit individually, and firms/organizations benefit

from both financial and cultural perspectives.

My research focuses on the importance of early career experiences, and therefore,

understanding the influence early in the pipeline. The goal remains to reduce the “leaks”

in that pipeline (PwC, 2019) and to flood that same career pipeline with talented women

who can contribute to the industries in which they still fall in the minority. By

encouraging all stakeholders to participate, more comprehensive solutions can be

reached.

42
 REFERENCES

American Council on Education. 2012. The American College President 2012. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.

Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling Back: Dual-Earner Couples' Work-Family Strategies.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 995. doi:10.2307/354019

Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W., & Williams, J. C. (2018). Work as a

Masculinity Contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 422-448. doi:10.1111/josi.12289

Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (1993). Categorization and stereotyping: Effects of group context
on memory and social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(2), 166–
202. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1008

Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., & Halpin, S. M. (1998). All that
you can be: Stereotyping of self and others in a military context. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.301

Block, C. J., Koch, S. M., Liberman, B. E., Merriweather, T. J., & Roberson, L. (2011).
Contending with stereotype threat at work: A model of long-term responses. [PH37] The
Counseling Psychologist, 39(4), 570–600. doi: 10.1177/0011000010382459

Bryant-Anderson, R., & Roby, P. A. (2012). The Experience of Leadership: Women and Men
Shop Stewards’ Perspectives in Ten Trade Unions. Labor Studies Journal, 37(3), 271-
292. doi:10.1177/0160449x12453771

Budig, M. J. (2014, September 2). The Fatherhood Bonus and The Motherhood Penalty:
Parenthood and the Gender Gap in Pay – Third Way. Retrieved from
https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-fatherhood-bonus-and-the-motherhood-penalty-
parenthood-and-the-gender-gap-in-pay

Catalyst, Pyramid: Women in S&P 500 Companies (January 15, 2020)

Chandoha, M. (2017). Insights from Marie Chandoha. Retrieved March 27, 2020, from
https://www.schwabfunds.com/public/csim/nn/chandoha/may2017.html

Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The Differential Impact of Gender Ratios on Women and
Men: Tokenism, Self-Confidence, and Expectations. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21(9), 876-884. doi:10.1177/0146167295219001

Craig, J. M., & Sherif, C. W. (1986). The effectiveness of men and women in problem-solving
groups as a function of group gender composition. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,
14(7-8), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288427

43
Crocker, J., & Mcgraw, K. M. (1984). What's Good for the Goose Is Not Good for the Gander.
American Behavioral Scientist, 27(3), 357-369. doi:10.1177/000276484027003007

Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A
meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 225–248. doi:
10.1006/jvbe.1999.1711

Eagly, A., & Carly, L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business
Review, 85(9), 63-71.

Ellemers, N., Rink, F., Derks, B., & Ryan, M. K. (2012). Women in high places: When and why
promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how
to prevent this). Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 163-
187. https://doi.org/(...)6/j.riob.2012.10.003

Floge, L., & Merril, D. M. (1986). Tokenism Reconsidered: Male Nurses and Female Physicians
in a Hospital Setting. Social Forces, 64(4), 925. doi:10.2307/2578787

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of

occupational health psychology (p. 143–162). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10474-007

Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2019). Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace
Equity. Retrieved March 27, 2020, from
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-
over-workplace-equity/
Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision
making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(4), 510–526. doi: 10.1037//0022-
0167.43.4.510

Gibson, D. E., & Lawrence, B. S. (2010). Womens and mens career referents: How gender
composition and comparison level shape career expectations. Organization Science,
21(6), 1159–1175. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0508

Glick, P., Berdahl, J.L., & Alonso, N.M (2018). Development and validation of the masculinity
contest culture scale. Journal of Social Issues, 73(3), 449-476

Hegeswich, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and Not Equal?
Gender Segregation in the Labor ... Retrieved March 27, 2020, from
https://iwpr.org/publications/separate-and-not-equal-gender-segregation-in-the-labor-
market-and-the-gender-wage-gap/

44
Hekman, D. R., Johnson, S. K., Foo, M., & Yang, W. (2017). Does Diversity-Valuing Behavior
Result in Diminished Performance Ratings for Non-White and Female Leaders? Academy
of Management Journal, 60(2), 771-797. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0538

Heilman, M. E., & Parks-Stamm, E. J. (2007). Gender stereotypes in the workplace: Obstacles to
womens career progress. Social Psychology of Gender Advances in Group Processes, 24,
47–77. doi: 10.1016/s0882-6145(07)24003-2

Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2015). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal preparation
programs?
www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/Hess_Kelly_Learning_to_Lead_PEPG05.02.pdf

Hewlett, S. A., Peraino, K., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2010). The sponsor effect: Breaking
through the last glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review. 30percentclub. org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/The-Sponsor-Effect.pdf..

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and
responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990. doi:
10.1086/226425

King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F. (2010). Understanding tokenism:
antecedents and consequences of a psychological climate of gender inequity. Journal of
Management, 36(2), 482–510. doi: 10.1177/0149206308328508

Kobrynowicz, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (1997). Who considers themselves victims of

discrimination? Individual difference predictors of perceived gender discrimination in
women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(3), 347–
363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00118.x

Larwood, L., & Wood, M. M. (1995). Training women for management: Changing priorities.
Journal of Management Development, 14(2), 54–64. doi: 10.1108/02621719510078894

Lenney, E. What's fine for the gander isn't always good for the goose: Sex differences in self-
confidence as a function of ability area and comparison with others. Sex
Roles, 1981, 7, 905–924.

Lenney, E., & Gold, J. Sex differences in self-confidence: The effects of task completion and of
comparison to competent others. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 1982, 8, 74–80.

Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive
consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(4), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.918

45
Mackey, J. D., Roth, P. L., Iddekinge, C. H. V., & Mcfarland, L. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of
gender proportionality effects on job performance. Group & Organization Management,
44(3), 578–610. doi: 10.1177/1059601117730519

Metz, I. (2003). Individual, interpersonal, and organisational links to women’s advancement in

management in banks. Women in Management Review, 18(5), 236–251. doi:
10.1108/09649420310485087

Ogden, S. M., Mctavish, D., & McKean, L. (2006). Clearing the way for gender balance in the
management of the UK financial services industry. Women in Management Review,
21(1), 40–53. doi: 10.1108/09649420610643402

Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., & Roberts,
J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work
outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389–416.
doi: 10.1002/job.198

Pearce, J. L., & Randel, A. E. (2004). Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social
inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1),
81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.232

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: T[PH38] he effects of
type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177–1194. doi: 10.5465/1556344

Rikleen, Lauren S. 2015. Women lawyers Continue to Lag Behind Male Colleagues: Report of
the Ninth Annual NAWL survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms.
Womens’ Law Journal 100: 25.

Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2010). A meta-analysis of gender group differences for
measures of job performance in field studies. Journal of Management, 38(2), 719–739.
doi: 10.1177/0149206310374774

Ryan, C. (2019). Women desert trading floors as bias blocks path to management. Retrieved
from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-17/women-desert-trading-
floors-as-bias-blocks-path-to-management.

Ryan, K. M., King, E. B., Adis, C., Gulick, L. M. V., Peddie, C., & Hargraves, R. (2012).
Exploring the asymmetrical effects of gender tokenism on supervisor-subordinate
relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, E56–E102. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2012.01025.x

Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L., & Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The
effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in

46
 performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 263–
267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.263

Saenz, D. (1994). Token Status and Problem-Solving Deficits: Detrimental Effects of

Distinctiveness and Performance Monitoring. Social Cognition: Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 61-
74. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1994.12.1.61

Sahadi, J. (2019, October 16). Why it's good for business to have a woman at the top.
Retrieved[PH39] from https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/success/women-ceos-and-cfos-
outperform/index.html.

Sandberg, S., & Scovell, N. (2018). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, NY:
Alfred A. Knopf.

Schank, H., & Wallace, E. (2016, December 20). What Happens to Women's Ambitions in the
Years After College. Retrieved March 27, 2020, from
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/ambition-interview/486479/

Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager—think male: A global
phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(1), 33-41. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-
1379(199601)17:13.0.co;2-f

Schnieders, A. (2017, October 12). Why companies lose 17 percent of women employees at mid-
career. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/300533.

Schmitt, M. T., Spoor, J. R., Danaher, K., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). Rose-colored glasses:
How tokenism and comparisons with the past reduce the visibility of gender inequality.
In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), Psychology of women book series.
The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (p. 49–
71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11863-003

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797617741719

Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual
bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36(7), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.778

The leaking pipeline: Where are our female leaders? 79 women share their stories*. (2008).
Retrieved 2020, from https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/women-at-
pwc/assets/leaking_pipeline.pdf

Turco, C. J. (2010). Cultural foundations of tokenism. American Sociological Review, 75(6),

894–913. doi: 10.1177/0003122410388491

47
Wojtalik, J. R. (2006). There’s no place like home? The effects of childhood themes on women’s
aspirations toward leadership roles (Ed.D., Duquesne University). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/abicomplete/docview/305327047/abstract/2AC03F0D49F84
A05PQ/2

Women in the labor force: a databook: BLS Reports. (2017, November 1). Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2017/home.htm.

Wright, S. (1997). Ambiguity, Social Influence, and Collective Action ... Retrieved March 27,
2020, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672972312005

Yang, Y., Chawla, N. V., & Uzzi, B. (2019). A network’s gender composition and
communication pattern predict women’s leadership success. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 116(6), 2033-2038. doi:10.1073/pnas.1721438116
Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: looking beyond numbers. Gender & Society, 5(2),
178–192. doi: 10.1177/089124391005002003

48
APPENDIX

49
 A. Survey Consent Form

IRB Study # 20-0075

Title of Study: Women in Finance: Interactions Between Tokenism and Decision
Making on Career Trajectories
Principal Investigator: Laura Gerlach
Principal Investigator Department: Kenan-Flagler Business School
Principal Investigator Email Address: [email protected]
_________________________________________________________________

What are some general things you should know about research studies?
You are being asked to take part in a research study. To join the study is voluntary.
You may refuse to join, or you may withdraw your consent to be in the study, for any
reason, without penalty.

Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new information may help
people in the future. You may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research
study. There also may be risks to being in research studies. Details about this study are
discussed below. It is important that you understand this information so that you can
make an informed choice about being in this research study. You should ask the
researchers named above, or staff members who may assist them, any questions you have
about this study at any time.

What is the purpose of this study?

The purpose of this research study is to collect data about early career experiences
in the workplace and their effects on future career decisions and perceptions. The
study will hopefully increase awareness in academia and the workplace of
dynamics at play in early career scenarios.

Are there any reasons you should not be in this study?

You should not be in this study if you are under the age of 18 years old.

How many people will take part in this study?

There will be approximately 100 people in this research study.

How long will your part in this study last?

The duration of this study should last about 10-12 minutes or less.

What will happen if you take part in the study?

Your part in this study will last approximately 10 minutes, during which you will be
asked to answer some questions about yourself, workplace experiences, and about your
personal observations across workplaces.

What are the possible benefits from being in this study?

Research is designed to benefit society by gaining new knowledge. You will not benefit
personally from being in this research study.

50
What are the possible risks or discomforts involved from being in this study?
We anticipate few risks in this study. However, there may be uncommon or previously
unknown risks. You should report any problems to the researcher.

How will information about you be protected?

Participants will not be identified in any report or publication about this study. Any data
will always be reported in aggregate and not individually.

What if you want to stop before your part in the study is complete?
You can withdraw from this study at any time, without penalty and to skip any survey
questions which you do not wish to answer. Investigators may also remove your
responses from this study if you have had an unexpected reaction, or have failed to follow
instructions, or because the entire study has been stopped.

Will you receive anything for being in this study?

You will not receive anything for being in this study.

Will it cost you anything to be in this study?

It will not cost you anything to be in this study.

What if you have questions about this study?

You have the right to ask, and have answered, any questions you may have about this
research. If you have questions about the study, complaints, concerns, or if a research-
related injury occurs, you should contact the researchers listed on the first page of this
form.

What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?

All research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee that works to protect your
rights and welfare. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research
subject, or if you would like to obtain information or offer input, you may contact the
Institutional Review Board at 919-966-3113 or by email to [email protected].

51
 B. Other Items of Note in the Survey

Other Factors of Note in the Survey

The whole idea of career trajectory is a multifaceted issue which makes it hard to

measure with just one variable. In the survey I asked various variables aiming to

illuminate or at least approximate, career trajectories. While consideration of gender

balance in new teams was the dependent variable, other measures of career pivots had

crucial components to offer to the discussion as well.

Gender Composition: Peers & Upper Level Management

Data from surveys showed many respondents who described their first workplaces

as being male dominated across the board. This fact was not surprising as I targeted many

men and women respondents who were likely to start in male-dominated fields.

Surprisingly, several people said they worked in predominantly female environments. As

the survey targeted previous business students, I noted that most business environments

tend to not be female dominated but respondents in this relatively small sample size (n)

contradicted that original idea.

Even though responses ran the gamut in terms of employees, the vast majority of

respondents said upper management was male dominated. While different confounding

factors do play a role in people ascending to higher levels, the discrepancy between

composition of the organization as a whole and upper management should not be ignored.

Acceptance

52
 Acceptance, both inside and outside the office, drives productivity. Surprisingly,

most survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with feeling accepted in the office. A

difference existed between in-office and out of office acceptance. Even though lunches,

dinners, and happy hours do not equate to what happens in the office, relationships built

through these events often translate into rapport within teams. Therefore, this distinction

is important to note.

Bro Culture

The masculinity culture contest (MCC) scale asks 20 questions related to

“masculinity” in the workplace and I adapted a few of these for my survey. Interestingly,

both men and women noted distinctly masculine characteristics of their offices. Most

people expressed that leadership in their offices wanted them to place work ahead of

everything else. They also frequently agreed with the idea that not standing up for

themselves in the office would lead to people advocating for themselves.

53
 C. Survey Questionnaire

Thank you for participating in this study! Please review the terms of consent attached
below before proceeding.
Qualtrics survey consent form

o Yes, I consent
o No, I do not consent
What is your gender?

o Female
o Male
o Other (specify) ________________________________________________

What is your educational background?

o High School Diploma

o Some College
o Bachelor's Degree
o MBA
o Other Advanced Degree

54
What is your race/ethnicity?

o White
o Hispanic or Latinx
o Black/African
o Asian
o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
o Prefer not to answer
o Other

What is your age?

o 20-25
o 26-30
o 31-35
o 36+

55
How many years of work experience do you have (whole or part of year)?

o 0-3
o 4-6
o 7-10

What industry do you currently work in? If you are in graduate school, in what industry
did you last work?

________________________________________________________________

Are you currently in an MBA program?

o Yes
o No
First, we would like to ask you questions about the first job you had after graduating
undergrad.

What was the size of the company you first worked in when you graduated from
undergrad?

o Small (less than 100 employees)

o Medium (100-500 employees)
o Large (500 + employees)

56
What was the first industry you worked in?

________________________________________________________________

What was your first role out of college?

________________________________________________________________

What was the size of the team you were part of in this first job?

________________________________________________________________

Were the employees in your office or team

o Mostly men
o Mostly women
o An even mix of men and women
o I didn't notice / I don't know

What percentage of coworkers were of the same gender

o 100% of coworkers
o 75-99%
o 50-74%
o 25-49%
o less than 25%, but more than 0%
o 0%
57
Was the upper level management in your office comprised of

o Mostly men
o Mostly women
o An even mix of men and women
o I didn't notice / I don't know

How long did you stay on this team?

o years and months (specify below) ________________________________________________

o I am still on this team

How long did you stay in this organization

o years and months (specify below) ________________________________________________

o I am still in this organization

58
I felt like an accepted part of a team

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

I felt included in most activities at work

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

I felt included in most activities that my team engaged in outside of work

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

59
Sometimes I felt like an outsider

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

Admitting you don't know the answer looks weak

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

Physically imposing people have more influence

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

60
Leadership expects employees to put work first

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

You've got to watch your back

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

If you did not stand up for yourself, people would step on you

o Entirely true of my work environment

o Mainly true of my work environment
o Sometimes true of my work environment
o Rarely true of my work environment
o Never true of my work environment

61
Men in my company were promoted at a better rate than women

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

There are frequent occurrences of gender discrimination against women in my company

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

62
Men are given opportunities instead of women because of their gender in my company

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

I feel that I am a 'token' representative of my gender in my company

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

63
I often feel accepted as a person by my colleagues

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

I often spend social/leisure time together with my colleagues

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
Page Break

64
Did you have a mentor at work?

o Yes, I had a mentor

o No, I did not have a mentor

I was satisfied with my mentor

o Yes
o No

I had a female best friend at work

o Yes
o No

I had a male best friend at work

o Yes
o No
Have you changed jobs (includes positions with different responsibilities within the same
firm) since graduating from college?

o Yes
o No

65
Now we would like to ask you about your next job.

How many times did you switch jobs since graduating from college?

o1
o2
o3
o4
o 5+

To what extent did you switch industries?

o Chose a Complete Industry Pivot

o Same industry, Different Role
o Same industry, Same Role
o Other, please describe ________________________________________________

66
In this subsequent role, were/are the employees in your office/team?

o Mostly men
o Mostly women
o An even mix of men and women
o I didn't notice / I don't know

What percentage of your coworkers were/are of the same gender as you?

o 100%
o 75-99%
o 50-74%
o 25-49%
o less than 25% but more than 0%
o 0%

Was the upper management in your office comprised of?

o Mostly men
o Mostly women
o An even mix of men and women
o I didn't notice/I don't know

67
I considered the gender balance of my new team

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

I considered the gender balance of senior leadership

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

Did you take a pay cut in this new role?

o Yes
o No
68
Did you feel like you could not progress any further on your previous team?

o Yes
o No
Have you ever been in a decision-making position at work?

o Yes
o No

I found decision-making to be a challenging position at work

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

69
I feel prepared to be a leader

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

I am satisfied with my current job.

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

70
I anticipate making a career pivot sometime in my life

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

71
72