spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
2606:4700:7::a29f:8157
Public Scan
Submitted URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289
Effective URL: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12289
Submission: On May 12 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Effective URL: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12289
Submission: On May 12 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Form analysis 9 forms found in the DOM
Name: thisJournalQuickSearch — GET /action/doSearch
<form action="/action/doSearch" name="thisJournalQuickSearch" method="get" title="Quick Search">
<div class="input-group option-0"><label for="searchField0" class="hiddenLabel">Search term</label><input type="search" name="AllField" id="searchField0" placeholder="Search" onfocus="this.value = this.value;" data-auto-complete-max-words="7"
data-auto-complete-max-chars="32" data-contributors-conf="3" data-topics-conf="3" data-publication-titles-conf="3" data-history-items-conf="3" value="" tabindex="9" class="autocomplete actualQSInput quickSearchFilter ui-autocomplete-input"
autocomplete="off"><span role="status" aria-live="polite" class="ui-helper-hidden-accessible"></span><input type="hidden" name="SeriesKey" value="15404560">
<div class="search-options-wrapper quickSearchFilter">
<a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/search/advanced?publication=15404560" title="" tabindex="12" class="advanced"> Advanced Search</a><a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/search/advanced?publication=15404560#citation" title="" tabindex="12" class="citation"> Citation Search</a>
</div>
</div><button type="submit" title="Search" tabindex="11" aria-label="Submit Search" class="btn quick-search__button icon-search"></button>
</form>Name: defaultQuickSearch — GET https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch
<form action="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch" name="defaultQuickSearch" method="get" title="Quick Search">
<div class="input-group option-1"><label for="searchField1" class="hiddenLabel">Search term</label><input type="search" name="AllField" id="searchField1" placeholder="Search" onfocus="this.value = this.value;" data-auto-complete-max-words="7"
data-auto-complete-max-chars="32" data-contributors-conf="3" data-topics-conf="3" data-publication-titles-conf="3" data-history-items-conf="3" value="" tabindex="9" class="autocomplete actualQSInput quickSearchFilter ui-autocomplete-input"
autocomplete="off"><span role="status" aria-live="polite" class="ui-helper-hidden-accessible"></span>
<div class="search-options-wrapper quickSearchFilter">
<a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/search/advanced" title="" tabindex="12" class="advanced"> Advanced Search</a><a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/search/advanced#citation" title="" tabindex="12" class="citation"> Citation Search</a>
</div>
</div><button type="submit" title="Search" tabindex="11" aria-label="Submit Search" class="btn quick-search__button icon-search"></button>
</form>Name: wileyOnlineLibraryQuickSearch — GET https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch
<form action="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch" name="wileyOnlineLibraryQuickSearch" method="get" title="Quick Search">
<div class="input-group option-2"><label for="searchField2" class="hiddenLabel">Search term</label><input type="search" name="AllField" id="searchField2" placeholder="Search" onfocus="this.value = this.value;" data-auto-complete-max-words="7"
data-auto-complete-max-chars="32" data-contributors-conf="3" data-topics-conf="3" data-publication-titles-conf="3" data-history-items-conf="3" value="" tabindex="9" class="autocomplete actualQSInput quickSearchFilter ui-autocomplete-input"
autocomplete="off"><span role="status" aria-live="polite" class="ui-helper-hidden-accessible"></span>
<div class="search-options-wrapper quickSearchFilter">
<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/search/advanced" title="" tabindex="12" class="advanced"> Advanced Search</a><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/search/advanced#citation" title="" tabindex="12" class="citation"> Citation Search</a>
</div>
</div><button type="submit" title="Search" tabindex="11" aria-label="Submit Search" class="btn quick-search__button icon-search"></button>
</form>POST
<form method="post">
<fieldset>
<legend>Please review our <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions" target="_blank">Terms and Conditions of Use</a> and check box below to share full-text version of article.</legend>
<div class="input-group"><label for="terms-and-conditions" class="checkbox--primary"><input id="terms-and-conditions" type="checkbox" value="yes" required="" name="terms-and-conditions"
data-ajax-link="/action/generateShareUrl?doi=10.1111/josi.12289&shareType=P2P&format=FULL-TEXT" data-shareable-link=""><span class="label-txt">I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of
Use</span></label></div>
</fieldset>
<hr class="separator">
<div class="shareable"><label>Shareable Link</label>
<p>Use the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/researchers/tools-resources/sharing" target="_blank" class="emphasis">Learn more.</a></p>
<div class="shareable__box">
<div class="shareable__text">
<div class="shareable__field"><span id="shareable__text"></span><textarea tabindex="-1" class="shareable__text-area"></textarea></div>
</div><button type="submit" disabled="" class="btn shareable__btn">Copy URL</button>
</div>
<div class="error shareable__error hidden"></div>
</div>
</form>POST /action/doLogin?societyURLCode=
<form action="/action/doLogin?societyURLCode=" class="bordered" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="id" value="67065c09-4a88-49cd-934c-ac707951d35c">
<input type="hidden" name="popup" value="true">
<input type="hidden" name="loginUri" value="/doi/10.1111/josi.12289">
<input type="hidden" name="redirectUri" value="/doi/10.1111/josi.12289">
<input type="hidden" name="loginUri" value="/doi/10.1111/josi.12289">
<div class="input-group">
<div class="label">
<label for="username">Email or Customer ID</label>
</div>
<input id="username" class="login" type="text" name="login" value="" size="15" placeholder="Enter your email" autocorrect="off" spellcheck="false" autocapitalize="off" required="true">
<div class="actions">
</div>
</div>
<div class="input-group">
<div class="label">
<label for="password">Password</label>
</div>
<input id="password" class="password" type="password" name="password" value="" autocomplete="off" placeholder="Enter your password" autocorrect="off" spellcheck="false" autocapitalize="off" required="true">
<span class="password-eye-icon icon-eye hidden"></span>
</div>
<div class="actions">
<a href="/action/requestResetPassword" class="link show-request-reset-password">
Forgot password?
</a>
</div>
<div class="loginExtraBeans-dropZone" data-pb-dropzone="loginExtraBeans">
</div>
<div class="align-end">
<span class="submit " disabled="disabled">
<input class="button btn submit primary no-margin-bottom accessSubmit" type="submit" name="submitButton" value="Log In" disabled="disabled">
</span>
</div>
</form>POST /action/changePassword
<form action="/action/changePassword" method="post">
<div class="message error"></div>
<input type="hidden" name="submit" value="submit">
<div class="input-group">
<div class="label">
<label for="a589574e-bb98-4c6e-8fed-67365ff05357-old">Old Password</label>
</div>
<input id="a589574e-bb98-4c6e-8fed-67365ff05357-old" class="old" type="password" name="old" value="" autocomplete="off">
<span class="password-eye-icon icon-eye hidden"></span>
</div>
<div class="input-group">
<div class="label">
<label for="a589574e-bb98-4c6e-8fed-67365ff05357-new">New Password</label>
</div>
<input id="a589574e-bb98-4c6e-8fed-67365ff05357-new" class="pass-hint new" type="password" name="new" value="" autocomplete="off">
<span class="password-eye-icon icon-eye hidden"></span>
<div class="password-strength-indicator" data-min="10" data-max="32" data-strength="3">
<span class="text too-short">Too Short</span>
<span class="text weak">Weak</span>
<span class="text medium">Medium</span>
<span class="text strong">Strong</span>
<span class="text very-strong">Very Strong</span>
<span class="text too-long">Too Long</span>
</div>
</div>
<input class="button primary submit" type="submit" value="Submit" disabled="disabled">
</form>POST /action/registration
<form action="/action/registration" class="registration-form" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="redirectUri" value="/doi/10.1111/josi.12289">
<div class="input-group">
<div class="label">
<label for="4e647394-f751-4441-baa4-df426bca4b6e.email">Email or Customer ID</label>
</div>
<input id="4e647394-f751-4441-baa4-df426bca4b6e.email" class="email" type="text" name="email" value="" size="15">
</div>
<div class="submit">
<input class="button submit primary" type="submit" value="Register" disabled="disabled">
</div>
</form>POST /action/requestResetPassword
<form action="/action/requestResetPassword" class="request-reset-password-form" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="requestResetPassword" value="true">
<div class="input-group">
<div class="input-group">
<div class="label">
<label for="email">Email or Customer ID</label>
</div>
<input id="email" class="email" type="text" name="email" value="" size="15" placeholder="Enter your email" autocorrect="off" spellcheck="false" autocapitalize="off">
</div>
</div>
<div class="password-recaptcha-ajax"></div>
<div class="message error"></div>
<div class="form-btn">
<input class="button btn primary submit" type="submit" name="submit" value="RESET PASSWORD" disabled="disabled">
</div>
</form>POST /action/requestUsername
<form action="/action/requestUsername" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="requestUsername" value="requestUsername">
<div class="input-group">
<div class="label">
<label for="ac834f24-aa07-4ad2-9d13-f77c843f21cb.email">Email or Customer ID</label>
</div>
<input id="ac834f24-aa07-4ad2-9d13-f77c843f21cb.email" class="email" type="text" name="email" value="" size="15">
</div>
<div class="username-recaptcha-ajax">
</div>
<input class="button primary submit" type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit" disabled="disabled">
<div class="center">
<a href="#" class="cancel">Close</a>
</div>
</form>Text Content
Öffnet in einem neuen Fenster Öffnet eine externe Website Öffnet eine externe
Website in einem neuen Fenster
<!---->Schließen Sie diesen Dialog<!---->
Auf dieser Website werden Daten wie Cookies gespeichert, um wichtige Funktionen
der Website sowie Marketing, Personalisierung und Analyse zu ermöglichen. Sie
können Ihre Einstellungen jederzeit ändern oder die Standardeinstellungen
übernehmen. Sie können dieses Banner schließen, um nur mit essenziellen Cookies
fortzufahren. Datenschutz-Bestimmungen
Einstellungen verwalten Alle akzeptieren Alles ablehnen
<!---->Schließen Sie die Cookie-Einstellungen<!---->
* Skip to Article Content
* Skip to Article Information
Working off-campus? Learn about our remote access options
Search withinThis JournalSPSSI JournalsWiley Online Library
* Search term
Advanced Search Citation Search
* Search term
Advanced Search Citation Search
* Search term
Advanced Search Citation Search
Login / Register
* Journals
* Journal of Social Issues
* Social Issues and Policy Review
* Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy
* SPSSI Home
* Join SPSSI
* Conferences
Journal of Social Issues
Volume 74, Issue 3 p. 422-448
Original Article
Open Access
WORK AS A MASCULINITY CONTEST
Jennifer L. Berdahl,
Corresponding Author
Jennifer L. Berdahl
* jennifer.berdahl@sauder.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer L.
Berdahl, Professor of Leadership Studies: Gender and Diversity, Sauder School of
Business, University of British Columbia, 674–2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1Z2 [e-mail: jennifer.berdahl@sauder.ubc.ca].Search for more papers
by this author
Marianne Cooper,
Marianne Cooper
Stanford University
Search for more papers by this author
Peter Glick,
Peter Glick
Lawrence University
Search for more papers by this author
Robert W. Livingston,
Robert W. Livingston
Harvard University
Search for more papers by this author
Joan C. Williams,
Joan C. Williams
University of California–Hastings College of the Law
Search for more papers by this author
Jennifer L. Berdahl,
Corresponding Author
Jennifer L. Berdahl
* jennifer.berdahl@sauder.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer L.
Berdahl, Professor of Leadership Studies: Gender and Diversity, Sauder School of
Business, University of British Columbia, 674–2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1Z2 [e-mail: jennifer.berdahl@sauder.ubc.ca].Search for more papers
by this author
Marianne Cooper,
Marianne Cooper
Stanford University
Search for more papers by this author
Peter Glick,
Peter Glick
Lawrence University
Search for more papers by this author
Robert W. Livingston,
Robert W. Livingston
Harvard University
Search for more papers by this author
Joan C. Williams,
Joan C. Williams
University of California–Hastings College of the Law
Search for more papers by this author
First published: 13 September 2018
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289
Citations: 79
This article is part of the Special Issue “Work as a Masculinity Contest,”
Jennifer L. Berdahl, Marianne Cooper, and Peter Glick (Special Issue Editors).
For a full listing of Special Issue papers, see:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.2018.74.issue-3/issuetoc.
The copyright line for this article was changed on 2nd November after original
online publication.
About
* * REFERENCES
* RELATED
* INFORMATION
* PDF
Sections
* Abstract
* Masculinity
* MCC in Organizations
* Contributions and Future Directions
* Biographies
* References
* Citing Literature
PDF
Tools
* Request permission
* Export citation
* Add to favorites
* Track citation
ShareShare
Give access
Share full text access
Close modal
Share full-text access
Please review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share
full-text version of article.
I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareable Link
Use the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your
friends and colleagues. Learn more.
Copy URL
Share a link
Share on
* Facebook
* Twitter
* Linked In
* Reddit
* Wechat
ABSTRACT
We propose that a key reason why the workplace gender revolution has stalled
(England, 2010) is that work remains the site of masculinity contests among men.
In this article, we outline a theoretical framework for thinking about work as a
masculinity contest, beginning with a brief review of scholarship on masculinity
and exploring how the workplace is a context in which men feel particular
pressure to prove themselves as “real men.” We identify different dimensions of
masculinity along which employees may compete and how the competition may differ
by work context. We propose that organizations with Masculinity Contest Cultures
(MCCs) represent dysfunctional organizational climates (e.g., rife with toxic
leadership, bullying, harassment) associated with poor individual outcomes for
men as well as women (e.g., burnout, low organizational dedication, lower
well-being). We discuss how papers in this special issue contribute insight into
MCCs and end with a discussion of the contributions made by conceptualizing work
as a masculinity contest, and directions for future research.
In February 2017, Susan Fowler, an engineer at Uber, published a blog post about
serious problems at the company (Fowler, 2017). She documented repeated sexual
harassment from her manager and how her attempts to get human resources (HR) to
act went nowhere, in part because her manager was considered a “top performer.”
Fowler's account also described an organization characterized by a
“Game-of-Thrones” like environment in which managers actively fought with their
peers and sought to one-up and sabotage their own supervisors (e.g., by
withholding business critical information) in attempts to take their
supervisor's job. Such behavior was not hidden, but openly bragged about.
These bad behaviors resulted in business paralysis: Priorities were continually
reordered, projects were abandoned, and employees worried that their teams would
be dissolved. Summing up Fowler said, “It was an organization in complete,
unrelenting chaos.” Subsequent investigation by the New York Times unearthed
employee accounts describing Uber as a “Hobbesian environment…in which workers
are pitted against one another and where a blind eye is turned to infractions
from top performers” (Isaac, 2017, February 22). After Fowler's viral post,
other damaging information came to light. Uber was accused of using a software
tool to hide its drivers from regulators to avoid investigation; a video showed
CEO Travis Kalanick boasting about Uber's tough company culture and telling an
Uber driver who suffered financial losses to take responsibility for his own
problems; the CEO and other executives visited an escort bar in South Korea and
board member David Bonderman notoriously commented that having more women on
Uber's Board of Directors would just lead to “more talking” (Rawlins, 2017). In
the end, lawsuits were filed, Travis Kalanick was forced to resign as CEO, and
the company suffered major reputational damage.
While Uber may be an extreme example, it is certainly not the only organization
that has this kind of toxic culture. Indeed, Silicon Valley as a whole has been
under attack for its “bro” culture, rule-breaking, and sexism. Recent examples
in other sectors include Fox News, the Weinstein Company, and the Trump
Administration; all have received considerable negative press for toxic
leadership, bullying, and sexual harassment.
Though exposés of rotten administrative and organizational cultures are nothing
new, this special issue presents a new framework for understanding what goes
wrong in them and why. Our framework centers on toxic masculinity, which
“involves the need to aggressively compete and dominate others” (Kupers, 2005,
p. 713). Work becomes a masculinity contest when organizations focus not on
mission but on masculinity, enacted in endless “mine's bigger than yours”
contests to display workloads and long schedules (as in law and medicine)
(Blair-Loy, 2005; Kellogg, 2011), cut corners to out-earn everyone else (Roth,
2006), or shoulder unreasonable risks (as in blue-collar jobs or finance)
(Iacuone, 2005; Meyerson, Ely, & Wernick, 2007; Nelson, 2012). The coin of the
realm shifts in different industries but the role of toxic masculinity does not.
We argue that much of what simply appears to be neutral practices and what it
takes to get ahead at work is actually counterproductive behavior aimed at
proving manhood on the job.
Dropping a bias training, diversity initiative, or work–life program into
workplaces dominated by the masculinity contest does not serve to effect
meaningful change (Williams, 2013). This special issue aims to inspire research
that will arm practitioners to take more consequential and sustainable steps
toward promoting diversity and work–life goals by addressing the underlying
issue of the masculinity contest. The result will be workplaces that are more
efficient and effective in achieving their business objectives—and are healthier
and happier for women and for most men, who are either excluded from the
masculinity contest, have no interest in playing it, or are destined to lose.
Eliminating the masculinity contest will help organizations focus on efficiency
and profitability rather than on macho showmanship, and will help all workers
who want to be left in peace to do their work with dignity.
Much of our own work has exposed how masculine pressures on men motivate them to
engage in “bad but bold” behavior (Glick et al., 2004)—including sexual
harassment (Berdahl, 2007a), physical aggression (Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford,
Weaver, & Wasti, 2009), and extreme work hours and cut-throat competition
(Cooper, 2014; Williams, 1999). This special issue represents the culmination of
a collaborative research project to theorize and study workplace culture as a
masculinity contest: A zero-sum competition played according to rules defined by
masculine norms (e.g., displaying strength, showing no weakness or doubt).
We gathered an interdisciplinary research team from psychology, sociology,
management, engineering, and law11 The team met four times over the course of
three years (2014 to 2017) in Vancouver, British Columbia, and included the
authors in this special issue in addition to Janine Benedet, Victoria Brescoll,
Elizabeth Croft, Cynthia Emrich, Elizabeth Hirsh, Fiona Macfarlane, Corinne
Moss-Racusin, Lakshmi Ramarajan, Toni Schmader, and Sheryl Staub-French, each of
whom attended at least one meeting.
to analyze workplaces that foster masculinity contests by rewarding those who
emerge as winners as the “real men” who are entitled to status and resources. We
introduce a new tool to help identify Masculinity Contest Cultures (MCCs; Glick,
Berdahl, & Alonso, 2018) as a first step in documenting the costs of this way of
doing business, which damages organizations and individuals long before those
companies’ toxic cultures make headlines.
This introductory article outlines a theoretical framework for thinking about
MCCs. Subsequent papers in this special issue represent initial studies into
measuring MCCs (Glick et al., 2018), assessing their consequences (Alonso, 2018;
Glick et al., 2018; Matos, O'Neill, and Lei, 2018; Reid, O'Neill & Blair-Loy,
2018; Rawski & Workman-Stark, 2018), analyzing their ideological underpinnings
(Kuchynka, Bosson, Vandello, & Puryear, 2018; Munsch, Weaver, Bosson, &
O'Connor, 2018), and considering potential interventions (Ely & Kimmel, 2018;
Rawski & Workman-Stark, 2018).
We begin with a brief review of theory and research on masculinity, considering
masculinity's relationship to dominance over women and other men, how different
masculinities are hierarchically ordered with hegemonic masculinity on top, and
how masculinity is precarious. We then consider the connections between
masculinity and work, exploring how the workplace is a context in which men feel
particular pressure to prove themselves as “men.” We identify different
dimensions of masculinity along which employees may compete and how the
competition may differ by context. We then introduce the concept of MCCs in
organizations, and how and why MCCs are likely to be linked to a host of
undesirable organizational maladies such as toxic leadership, lack of
psychological safety in work groups, reduced employee well-being, lack of
work–life balance, sexual harassment, and bullying. Throughout, we make
connections to how papers in this special issue contribute insight into MCCs,
including efforts toward changing or eliminating them.
MASCULINITY
Conventional understandings of gender assume that masculinity and femininity are
rooted in biology and that personality attributes associated with men and women
represent natural expressions of inborn and immutable traits: Men and women
behave in certain ways simply because they are men (e.g., “boys will be boys”)
or women (e.g., a motherhood instinct). Gender scholars have upended these
conflations of biology with culture and sex with gender, highlighting how social
structures create and reinforce gendered behavior. Like race and social class,
gender is a system of stratification that operates at the individual,
interactional, and organizational level (Acker, 1990; Berdahl, 2007a; Martin,
2004; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004; Risman & Davis, 2013; West & Zimmerman, 1987).
Therefore, masculinity and femininity are not simply different things that have
the same value, but reflect a gender system in which (masculine) men have higher
status, more power, and greater privileges than women (or less masculine men;
Ridgeway Smith-Lovin, 1999). Far from being a biological given, gender
represents a socially created, enforced, and reproduced axis of power and
inequality.
Critical studies of men and masculinities have investigated these social
processes—the practices, characteristics, expectations, interactions, and
institutional dynamics culturally associated with, and thought to be
prototypical of, men (e.g., tough, stoic, breadwinner, risk taker, aggressive,
dominant, leader). And, in turn, how these social processes and ways of being
become the means by and through which individuals constitute themselves (and
come to be seen by others) as “men” (Connell, 1987; Kimmel, 1986; Pascoe &
Bridges, 2016). Central to the definition of what it means to “be a man” is “to
not be a woman.” These ideologies and practices become the means by and through
which men subordinate, and come to be viewed as superior to, women.
DOMINANCE
In many cultures around the world, males become men through dominance—by
controlling other people, “making things happen,” eliciting deference, and
resisting being controlled by others (Cuddy et al., 2015; Ezzell, 2016; Glick
et al., 2004; Schrock & Schwalbe, 2009). Such “manhood acts” are not merely
self-presentations or neutral ways of behaving, but constitute acts that involve
“valorizing males, men, and masculinity; of devaluing females, women, and
femininity; of excluding women from networks, jobs, and positions of power; and
of coordinating acts of domination in war, business, and politics” (Schwalbe,
2014, p. 31). They also operate to create hierarchies among men, defining as
“real men” those who win masculinity contests and all other men as not “real”
men. Culturally, masculinity is, at its core, about achieving dominance: over
women, but also over other men (Connell, 1987; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005;
Messerschmidt, 2018; Pleck, 1974; Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). Dominance is both
necessary and sufficient for achieving hegemonic masculinity, and being
dominated by others (e.g., showing vulnerability or weakness) destroys one's
masculinity (Bosson & Vandello, 2011).
HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY
Hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987; Messerschmidt, 2018) represents the most
culturally honored form of masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005)—“the form
that is not only most revered when enacted by individual men, but most effective
in maintaining power and privilege for men when enacted collectively” (Schwalbe,
2014, pp. 31–32). In contemporary western cultures, the hegemonic masculine
ideal for men is to be rich, White, heterosexual, tall, athletic, professionally
successful, confident, courageous, and stoic. Even if very few men enact and
embody all aspects of hegemonic masculinity, its idealization makes these
dimensions widely normative (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Those who cannot or
do not want to meet its requirements (e.g., gay men, men of color, humble men)
may nonetheless appropriate, emphasize, or engage in some dimensions of
hegemonic masculinity in how they act or think about themselves (e.g.,
sexualized talk, obsession with sports, financial ambitions). Such hybrid
masculinities reify dominant masculinity tropes and reinforce gender
inequalities, even among men who fail to or choose not to completely measure up
(Bridges & Pascoe, 2014; Pascoe, 2007), and reward men who meet hegemonic
standards higher status and more power and influence.
Importantly, definitions of manhood and masculinity are not fixed, always and
forever the same. Rather, what it means to be masculine varies both historically
and culturally, and is malleable from one context to another. Thus, Cuddy et al.
(2015) found that in the West, where individualism is a central value, gender
stereotypes associate men with individualistic or agentic traits and women with
less valued communal traits. By contrast, in nations that value individualism
less and communalism more, the male-agency versus female-communality gap closes
significantly; indeed, in a few nations, such as Japan, men are viewed as more
communal than women. Masculinities thus differ along dimensions such as region,
historical period, race and ethnicity, social class, and sexuality (Carrigan,
Connell, & Lee, 1985; Cheng, 1996; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Hamada, 1996;
Kimmel, 2006). These masculinities are hierarchically ordered and connected;
relative to cultural definitions of hegemonic masculinity, other masculinities
have lower status.
Racial hierarchies have often been expressed and enforced as brutal hierarchies
among men, both historically (e.g., lynching) and today (e.g., the shooting and
incarceration of Black men by police; Alexander, 2012; DuRocher, 2011).
Workplace consequences include the “Teddy Bear effect,” whereby Black men need
to do extra “identity work” to ensure that White colleagues do not feel
threatened (Carbado & Gulati, 2013; Livingston & Pearce, 2009), and the
“authority gap,” in which the gap in authority at work is greater between Black
and White men than between Black and White women (Sidanius & Prato, 2001). Class
hierarchies, too, are often expressed as hierarchies among men. The resulting
workplace dynamics can be complex, as when a Silicon Valley engineer told one
coauthor, “Guys try to out-macho each other [by working the longest hours]….It's
not like being a brave firefighter and going up one more flight than your
friend….He's a real man; he works 90-hour weeks” (Cooper, 2000). Note how the
masculinity contest among professional-managerial men is fueled by a desire to
prove themselves more manly than blue-collar men. Workplace masculinity contests
also express and enforce heteronormativity, as when construction workers’
displays of heterosexuality become integral to workplace honor (Iacuone, 2005).
Thus, hegemonic masculinity is an important way workplaces reinforce not just
gender, but also race and class hierarchies and heteronormativity.
PRECARIOUS MANHOOD
Although definitions of masculinity may change depending on time and place,
several constants remain: Masculinity is defined through dominance, contains an
antifemininity mandate, and must be proven. As phrases like “man up” attest,
being a man is an achieved status, above and beyond being biologically male.
Whereas people tend to view womanhood as an ascribed characteristic, manhood
must be earned, over and over again (Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, &
Weaver, 2008). Men feel continual pressure to demonstrate, often publicly, to
themselves and to others, that they are “real” men. And, because manhood is
socially attained (e.g., being dominant over others, being a breadwinner), it
depends on others’ views and deference, which makes manhood conditional and
tenuous. Therefore, masculinity can be easily lost (e.g., by displaying
sentimental feelings) and readily undone (e.g., by becoming unemployed).
As a social status, then, manhood is precarious—hard to achieve and easily lost
(Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Numerous studies have demonstrated the ease with
which one can make a man feel like “less of a man,” for example, by having him
think about job loss (Michniewicz, Vandello, & Bosson, 2014), or interact with a
confident and ambitious woman who considers women equal to men (Maass, Cadinu,
Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003), or by telling him he has a “feminine” personality
(Alonso, 2018). The need to repeatedly prove masculinity can lead men to behave
aggressively, embrace risky behaviors, sexually harass women (or other men), and
express homophobic attitudes, when men feel that their masculinity is threatened
(Alonso, 2018; Bosson et al., 2009; Maass et al., 2003; Weaver, Vandello, &
Bosson, 2013; Willer, Rogalin, Conlon, & Wojnowicz, 2013).
Masculinity is proven through manly displays and feats as well as by eschewing
and devaluing traits, characteristics, or interests that are culturally coded as
feminine (e.g., refusing to wear pink or derogating caretaking). This
antifemininity mandate is culturally sanctioned and reinforced as boys and men
are typically punished more than are girls and women for exhibiting
gender-atypical behaviors (Moss-Racusin, 2014; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004;
Sullivan, Moss-Racusin, Lopez, & Williams, 2018). Because people view gender as
innate and biological, when a man transgresses gender boundaries, others may
take it as evidence that he inherently lacks masculine qualities and is not a
“real” man. Thus, by transgressing gender boundaries, men forfeit status as they
move from exalted masculinity to devalued femininity. When women transgress
gender boundaries, they too challenge innate assumptions about gender and face
backlash (e.g., Berdahl, 2007a, 2007b; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Phelan,
Moss-Racusin, & Rudman, 2008; Rudman, 1998), but they may also elevate their
status in male domains by demonstrating that they have “what it takes” to
succeed (e.g., having “balls”). While a girl might be admired as a “tomboy,” a
boy is shamed as a “sissy.” This is not to deny the often violent repercussions
that follow women's gender transgressions, especially when power is involved
(Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010). But the antifemininity mandate of what it means to
“be a man,” makes acting like a “girl” or a “woman” one of the worst things a
male can do.
In addition to being precarious, masculinity (and gender relations more broadly)
are prone toward “crisis tendencies” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Social
movements (e.g., women's rights) and economic changes (e.g., declines in
working-class men's wages) can threaten (some) men's hold on power and
legitimacy. Thus, larger social, political, and economic transformations, from
feminist victories to neoliberalism, can upend what masculinity is or can be,
and, in turn, determine how different groups of men respond when faced with
demands for change or threats to their status. Such transformational moments or
epochs can spark both progress (increase in women's labor force participation)
and retrenchment (growth of men's rights groups).
MASCULINITY AT WORK
If behaving like a girl is the antithesis of hegemonic masculinity and dominance
is its defining feature, then enacting dominance in “manly” ways can help to
secure manhood. A manly way of enacting dominance is being the family
breadwinner by doing “men's” work, which also secures economic resources that
can be used to gain physical and social resources (e.g., Pratto, Pearson, Lee, &
Saguy, 2008). And, because dominance over others is achieved by having relative
control over valued physical, social, and economic resources (e.g., Fiske, &
Berdahl, 2007), the workplace is a primary location in which men attempt to
secure manhood and dominance over women and other men (Britton & Logan, 2008).
Masculinity contests thus often manifest as contests for resources, and emerge
in “men's work” domains where resources are up for grabs. Contests occur in
various venues: sports provide opportunities to demonstrate physical strength
and stamina; in politics, elite institutions, and clubs, men vie for and
exercise social influence to gain resources. However, the workplace represents
the venue in which money—the ultimate resource in modern economies—is to be
made, making it a central context for resource acquisition and establishing
dominance. Dominance in the workplace comes with the ability to control others’
attempts to acquire resources through work, but also with the ability to control
one's own and others’ lives outside of work, including financial independence,
societal standing, and family breadwinner status. Because work is a site where
men can acquire valued resources that enable dominance over others, it is
primary site in which men attempt to prove and negotiate their manhood.
Research on gender and work has examined how hegemonic forms of masculinity are
embedded in companies, organizations, and workplaces. This research has revealed
how gender inequalities are built into the organization of work itself (highly
paid male jobs, lower paid female jobs) and how gender is constituted both
within occupations and in everyday practices and interactions on the job (Acker,
1992; Ely & Meyerson, 2010; Martin, 2004). We propose that masculinity contests
are most prevalent—and vicious—in male-dominated occupations where extreme
resources (fame, power, wealth) or precarious resources (risky or dangerous
“men's” work; Ely & Meyerson, 2010; Zaloom, 2006) are at stake—where the spoils
of winning, or the cost of losing, the contest are particularly high.
Hierarchical structures are also likely to be associated with masculinity
contests as contenders compete for favor and promotion up the ranks or seek to
topple those above. Finally, external pressures on organizations, such as strong
competition or a high risk of failure within their industry, are also likely to
feed MCCs. Examples abound, from finance and the start-up world of tech in which
billions of dollars are quickly made or lost, to surgeons who perform high-stake
operations with no room for error, to military and police units performing risky
jobs with strict chains-of-command.
Investigations of masculinity at work in a wide range of occupations have
identified how work norms are often conflated with masculinity and contests for
dominance. For example, Pierce's (1996) ethnography observed that celebrated
trial lawyers were those dubbed “Rambo litigators,” who behaved in forceful and
aggressive ways—those (men) who took control of the courtroom and “destroyed
witnesses” on the stand. Studies of corporate settings have identified
successful managers as being those who are instrumental, decisive, and willing
to take big risks—who may well be rewarded even when those risks do not pan out,
as in the financial collapse that produce the Great Recession of 2008 (Collinson
& Hearn,1994; Kerfoot & Knights, 1993; Messerschmidt, 1995; Nelson, 2012;
Pfeffer, 2010). This conflation of top performance with masculine gender
performance means that masculinity and workplace success are often treated as
synonymous. Success comes to focus not on meeting performance goals, but on
proving you are more of man than the next guy. Thus, being a top performer is
tantamount to being a man—or for the winners, “the man.”
The masculinity contest concept focuses on how the very acts that serve to
signify an individual man's masculinity can come to define an organization's
culture. In this zero-sum game, men compete at work for dominance by showing no
weakness, demonstrating a single-minded focus on professional success,
displaying physical endurance and strength, and engaging in cut-throat
competition. We characterize a company as having an MCC when these behaviors are
not just the isolated acts of a few individual men but become the way work gets
done; i.e., when masculine norms determine who and what gets rewarded, how
colleagues should be treated, and attitudes about work/life balance.
MCC IN ORGANIZATIONS
Organizations with MCCs valorize hegemonic masculinity, or the traits men
“ought” to have—being aggressive, assertive, independent, ambitious,
competitive, and strong—and disparage femininity, or the traits men “ought not”
to have—sensitivity, naiveté, weakness, insecurity, gullibility, uncertainty,
and indecisiveness (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012). In short,
masculine norms emphasize enacting agency and dominance and avoiding weakness
and vulnerability. An MCC exists when an individual's or group's status and
power within an organization is associated with the insistent display of
masculinity and winning masculinity contests against others.
Psychologically, we view MCC as the organizational manifestation of precarious
manhood (Bosson & Vandello, 2011): an environment in which one constantly has to
prove one's masculinity to others (specifically, “I have no weaknesses,” “I put
work above all else,” “I'm stronger and have more work stamina than others,” and
“I'm the dog that eats all other dogs” Glick et al., 2018). As precarious
manhood research has shown, the constant project to prove manhood creates
unspoken anxiety for a “hard won, easily lost” status (Vandello et al., 2008).
Any misstep threatens to puncture the “winner” image that individuals within
these organizational cultures strive to cultivate, thus destroying their claims
to status and success.
Importantly, in MCCs, men and women alike must play the game to survive or win.
There are different roles to be played—to use a masculine metaphor, some will be
linebackers, others quarterbacks, some coaches, and still others cheerleaders.
But to survive in the organization, one must fall in line and adhere to a system
in which valued resources are obtained through a willingness to uphold the
game—playing as a contender or as someone who supports one. Women and men who
are not part of the in-group can play, most acceptably, in supporting roles.
Recent studies, for example, suggest that women and people of color who go into
law and engineering are expected to play a very specific role: supporting—but
not competing with—the in-group involved in the masculinity contest (typically
composed almost exclusively of White men; Williams, Berdahl, & Vandello, 2016a;
Williams, Multhaup, Li, Korn, 2018). Thus, studies show that, as compared with
White men, women of all races report higher loads of “office housework,” and
that both women and people of color report less access to the glamour work, as
well as more pressure to let others take the lead. In addition, both women and
people of color are more likely than White men to report pushback for
assertiveness, self-promotion and anger, all of which are key weapons in the
masculinity contest—thus making it risky, and difficult, for women and people of
color to vie head-on as contenders themselves (e.g., Berdahl & Min, 2012;
Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Rudman, 1998; Williams Li, Rincon & Finn, 2016b;
Williams et al., 2018). Indeed, the masculinity contest is very much a White
masculinity contest to the extent that hegemonic masculinity is defined by and
through enacting not only male, but also White, supremacy.
Trying to win masculinity contests within these cultures comes at a risk for
everyone involved: Losing means disgrace and the loss of perceived manhood for
men, or of proof that one does not have “what it takes” to succeed (for both men
and women). But entering into the fray of masculinity contests is particularly
dangerous for women, men of color, and nonhegemonic men with resistant
masculinities (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). For example, Asian Americans (men and
women) who display dominance tend to be disliked (Berdahl & Min, 2012), and
Asian Americans’ cultural deference to authority may be read as weakness; both
handicap Asian American men in the masculinity contest (Gee, Peck, & Wong,
2015). Class migrants (professionals from working-class families) may be
disadvantaged in professional jobs because they are brought up to value
interdependence and distrust ambition, whereas the masculinity contest reflects
elite Whites’ intense focus on, and admiration for, individual achievement
(Stephens, Fryberg, & Markus, 2012). In all these ways, the masculinity contest
is heavily weighted to advantage elite White men, to whom it may feel more
natural, and in whom it is seen as more socially appropriate, to engage in the
raw ambition, ruthlessness, and domination necessary to win masculinity
contests.
Finally, to engage in and win masculinity contests often requires not only
performing hegemonic masculinity but distancing oneself from other identities.
For women and men from subordinated groups, this means distancing oneself from,
and putting down, other women and subordinated group members, respectively—for
women, this strategic distancing is known as the “Queen Bee” phenomenon (Derks,
Ellemers, van Laar, & de Groot, 2011; Faniko, Ellemers, Derks, & Lorenzi-Cioldi,
2017). Strategic distancing for people of color typically consists of pressures
to “act White” (Carbado & Gulati, 2013; Kang, DeCelles, Tilcsik, & Jun, 2016).
For all these reasons, women and men from marginalized groups, and those whose
values strongly reject ruthless dominance competitions, typically do not “win”
in MCCs. Women and men with subordinated identities may be well represented at
the entry levels of organizations with such cultures but their careers typically
stall out. An example follows: A recent study of Silicon Valley found that
despite Asian Americans’ high representation in the workforce, Whites were 154%
more likely to be executives (Gee et al., 2015). The women and men from
marginalized groups who remain within organizations rife with MCCs are likely to
survive by playing supporting roles to the victors.
These “losers” include not only women but also most men, who either lost the
masculinity contest or refused to play it. Organizations where the masculinity
contest is alive and well often are dominated by a small group of men who
control the rules of the game. Sexual harassment provides one example. One study
found—no surprise—that only 10% of women enjoyed “ambient sexual behavior” such
as sexualized joking. The surprise is that only 43% of men said they enjoyed it,
highlighting that most men feel as uncomfortable with masculinity-contest
behaviors as women do (Berdahl & Aquino, 2009). A dramatic example of the
sometimes-sordid consequences of workplace masculinity contests is the Supreme
Court case Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, which involved a (straight)
male oil-rig worker who was extensively bullied and ultimately sodomized with a
bar of soap because his team did not accept his brand of masculinity.
Male-on-male harassment based on sex is best understood as an expression of
dominance in a masculinity contest (Alonso, 2018).
DIMENSIONS OF MCC
To theorize the likely dimensions valorized within organizations with MCCs—i.e.,
the dimensions on which people compete for masculine standing and dominance—we
considered the physical, emotional, behavioral, and social dimensions that
define manhood in contemporary western cultures. Brannon's (1976) oft-quoted
summary proposed the following rules for what it takes to attain adult
masculinity: No Sissy Stuff (express no “weak,” feminine emotions), Be a Big
Wheel (achieve status, success, power), Be a Sturdy Oak (exhibit toughness,
self-reliance, strength, and stamina), and Give ‘em Hell (crush the opposition).
The most well-researched masculine norm scales reinforce and expand on Brannon's
masculine prescriptions. The Masculine Role Norms Scale (MNRS; Thompson & Pleck,
1986), the Masculine Role Norms Inventory (MNRI; Levant, Rankin, Williams,
Hasan, & Smalley, 2010), and the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI;
Mahalik et al., 2003) each defines masculinity as involving a preoccupation with
attaining status or dominance, exhibiting toughness, and avoiding “soft” or
feminine emotions and behavior. Additional dimensions on both the MNRI and CMNI
include self-reliance, restricted emotionality, aggression/violence,
antihomosexual attitudes, and sexual conquest. The CMNI also includes
risk-taking and exerting power over women.
The specific masculinity contest norms we define closely match Brannon's (1976)
masculinity prescriptions, but were derived through developing and repeatedly
testing the MCC scale as reported in detail by Glick et al. (2018). Four
correlated dimensions repeatedly emerged, which confirmatory factor analysis
supported as comprising a superordinate dimension we label as MCC: Show no
weakness prescribes a swaggering confidence that admits no doubt, worries,
confusion or mistakes, as well as suppressing any tender, feminine emotions (“no
sissy stuff”). Strength and stamina associates achieving workplace respect and
status with being the “sturdy oak”: physically strong and athletic, with
endurance and stamina (e.g., ability to work long hours without breaks), even in
occupations that involve mental rather than physical labor. Put work first
aligns with becoming a “big wheel” by brooking no interference with work from
any outside or personal sources, such as family obligations, not taking any
breaks or leaves (seen as signs of weakness). Dog-eat-dog characterizes the
workplace as a hypercompetitive or gladiatorial arena where winners dominate and
exploit the losers; rivals must be crushed (“give ‘em hell”) because others
cannot be trusted.
Importantly, although masculinity contest norms are deeply rooted in masculine
prescriptions, once infused in organizational culture they become hegemonic not
just for majority men, but for women and minority men as well. To continue a
metaphor, once women or minority men enter the gladiatorial arena, they must
fight by the same rules to survive (or serve someone who will do it for them),
even as they are hamstrung (compared to majority men) by social prescriptions
that foster distaste and punishment for dominant behavior by women and minority
men (e.g., Livingston & Pearce, 2009; Rudman et al., 2012). Organizational
masculinity contest norms favor, but do not specifically refer to, men: demands
to show no weakness, demonstrate strength and stamina, put work first, and
engage in dog-eat-dog competition can be enforced just as strongly on women and
minority men (despite the double bind these groups face). In short, most
everyone, including most majority men, though perhaps women and minority men
especially given contradictory demands, may suffer negative consequences in
MCCs.
CONSEQUENCES OF MCC
MCCs define work as a zero-sum competition won by those who best adhere to the
masculine norms outlined above. We suggest, and the papers in this special issue
support, that such cultures create cascading negative consequences that flow
from top down: from the organizational and leadership level to the frequency of
negative behaviors in the work environment to undermining individuals’ relation
to the organization and (more distally) to the general well-being of individual
organization members.
Administering the newly created MCC scale to two large (about 500 respondents
each) working adult MTurk samples, Glick et al. (2018) found that perceiving
one's workplace as high in masculinity contest norms correlates with
organizational dysfunction, bad coworker behavior, and poor individual outcomes.
In an economy in which organizations habitually rely on cooperative teamwork,
the masculinity contest demands ruthless competition and prioritizing
self-interest to achieve individual status (by conforming to masculinity contest
norms and “winning” the game) rather than group or organizational goals. Success
requires focusing on burnishing one's own image, favoring a narcissistic focus
on personal status and advancement, often at the expense of coworkers and the
organization. Masculinity contest norms explicitly define the workplace as
divided into the elite “winners” and a mass of “losers” who do not have what it
takes to succeed.
As a result, negative organizational climate and leadership styles should be
more likely to thrive. Glick et al. (2018) found that people reporting
workplaces high in MCC were more likely to report having a toxic supervisor or
leader (Reed, 2004; Schmidt, 2008). MCCs seem likely to spawn leaders who care
about looking individually successful at all times and at any cost. Subordinates
represent tools to be exploited to achieve the appearance of the leader's
success, as well as convenient scapegoats to blame for failures. Dog-eat-dog
competition can foster suspicion toward talented underlings, who represent a
threat, causing toxic leaders to demand loyalty above all else, including no
complaints when the leader grabs all the credit for successes and shifts blame
onto subordinates for any failures. As a result, as Glick et al. (2018) found,
psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) is likely to be low in MCCs as people
jockey for position, seek to appease toxic leaders, and attempt to undermine
colleagues in a dog-eat-dog, zero-sum competition.
Matos et al., 2018 explore the connection between MCC and toxic leadership.
Surveying currently employed, college-educated individuals, they found that the
higher employees rated their workplace on MCC norms the more they reported toxic
leadership behaviors from their direct supervisors. These authors also found
significant psychological and organizational costs in high MCC workplaces. The
higher employees viewed their workplace on MCC, the greater their stress,
work–life conflict, and lower intent to stay at their jobs. Employees subjected
to toxic leaders reported greater stress, work–life conflict, and lower intent
to stay, as well as reduced work engagement and job meaning.
As Matos et al.’s findings illustrate, organizations with MCCs can prove
inhospitable to work–family balance, which directly contradicts the put work
first norm. Thus, even though the organization may have family leave policies,
informal norms clearly communicate that taking leave scuttles a career (e.g.,
Williams, Blair-Loy, & Berdahl, 2013). Even expressing commitment to caregiving
for one's family (e.g., a child, an elderly parent) may be inhibited as people
seek to prove they are “ideal workers” who let nothing come before their work
commitments (Williams, 1999).
When it comes to workplace behaviors, because winning the masculinity contest
depends on exhibiting dominance, these norms should increase the likelihood of
various problematic behaviors. Organizations with MCCs are likely to be rife
with bullying as the “strong” exploit the “weak,” demonstrate their toughness,
and show they are not to be crossed (i.e., they are the big dogs who eat the
little ones). In addition to promoting workplace bullying and incivility,
masculinity contest norms—which incentivize exploiting others’ weaknesses—are
likely to promote exclusion and harassment toward historically disadvantaged
groups and men with resistant masculinities (Rawski & Workman-Stark, 2018).
Consistent with this reasoning, Glick et al. (2018) found that perceiving one's
workplace as high in MCC was associated with greater likelihood of experiencing
or witnessing not only sexual or gender harassment but also ethnic harassment as
well as a more sexist organizational climate.
The unfavorable organizational consequences can be expected to create negative
effects on individuals. First and foremost, the individual's relationship to the
organization and their work can be expected to suffer. Facing a hypercompetitive
workplace rife with toxic leaders as well as bullying and harassment from
coworkers can be expected to negatively affect organizational dedication, work
performance, and job satisfaction, while promoting burnout and turnover. In such
organizations, exposing any chink in one's armor (e.g., by showing any “soft”
emotion) may prove fatal, crumbling a carefully constructed façade presented at
work. Therefore, the constant pressure to show no weakness, demonstrate strength
and stamina, put work first, and come out on top in dog-eat-dog competition is
likely to exacerbate masculinity contests’ negative effects on individuals,
increasing burnout and workplace stress. Glick et al. (2018) confirmed that MCC
workplace norms are associated with poor individual outcomes, especially those
involving the individual's relationship to work: greater burnout, higher
turnover intentions, and lower organizational dedication.
Munsch et al. (2018) showed that the negative consequences of MCCs may be
heightened for those who see MCC norms as incompatible with their own ideals
about how organizations should function, but who believe (falsely) that their
coworkers view MCC norms as ideal (a form of pluralistic ignorance).
Specifically, Munsch et al. found that individuals who believed coworkers
endorse MCC norms more strongly than they do report reduced job satisfaction,
job engagement, and mental health, along with increased relationship conflict
with their spouse or partner. Although MCCs are likely to more strongly affect
the individual's relationship to work, because work forms such a large part of
adult life, they also may erode individuals’ general well-being, both
psychological and physical (i.e., mental and physical health).
In their analysis of policing culture as a masculinity contest, Rawski and
Workman-Stark (2018) shed light on MCCs’ negative consequences. Policing often
is a high MCC environment, accompanied by curtailed advancement for female
officers, seeing family responsibilities as at odds with norms to “put work
first”; commonplace sexual harassment (toward both women and men); substance
abuse problems resulting from repressing emotions; and even risks to the public
because masculinity threats can lead officers to use excessive force. Their
empirical study of a policing organization confirmed links between MCCs and
adverse organizational and individual outcomes: lower levels of inclusion and
psychological safety, job dissatisfaction, turnover intentions, and reduced
psychological well-being.
WHY MCC PERSISTS
Two papers in this issue specifically explore aspects of precarious manhood, or
how threats to masculinity can motivate and help maintain behaviors and beliefs
associated with MCC. Alonso (2018) examined male–male sex-based harassment
(MM-SBH). She finds that a prior masculinity threat exacerbates men's propensity
to harass other men (by sending offensive sexist jokes to another man even after
he indicated he did not like those jokes). Participants who were told they
scored as feminine on a personality test (prototypicality threat) sent more
sexist jokes to their male partner than when they were told they achieved a
masculine score (prototypicality affirmation). Tellingly, the worse participants
felt about being told they were feminine, the more sexist jokes they sent. Thus,
Alonso's study illustrates that, as with male–female SBH, MM SBH is exacerbated
by a desire to reassert one's masculinity in the face of personal threat.
Kuchynka at al. (2018) explored how men respond to system level threats to
gender hierarchy, i.e., when men's in-group advantage is jeopardized.
Specifically, they examined whether women's workplace advances elicited
gender-based, zero-sum thinking (“women's gains equal men's losses”) among men.
In one study, male (but not female) college students presented with information
about the substantial gains women have made (system threat condition) more
strongly endorsed zero-sum thinking compared to when they were informed that
women still experienced inequality relative to men (no threat condition).
Moreover, men in the threat condition reported less support for gender equity
norms (e.g., raising awareness about cultural issues related to women at work)
and work/life balance norms (e.g., flexible work arrangements) than did men in
the no threat condition. Women's support for gender equity and work/life balance
norms was unaffected by the threat condition.
Taken together, Alonso's and Kuchynka at al.’s studies highlight the role status
threats—both to the individual's masculinity and to the gender hierarchy more
broadly—tend to generate behaviors (harassment, bullying) and beliefs (put work
first, not family) that engender and maintain MCCs. Masculinity's precariousness
and men's desire to hold on to their group's higher status position elicit
behaviors and reactions that reinforce MCC norms and undercut support for
policies (e.g., flexible work arrangements) that could undermine MCC by creating
more gender fair work environments.
In addition to status threats, MCC norms can also be maintained by “pluralistic
ignorance,” which describes when workers think that coworkers support
masculinity contest norms more than they do. In their survey of U.S. workers,
Munsch et al. (2018) found that few respondents personally endorsed masculinity
contest norms as an “ideal work environment,” but often believed that coworkers
subscribed to these norms. In other words, respondents falsely believed that
coworkers approve MCC norms, creating a situation likely to foster MCC norms’
persistence. For example, to fit in, employees may publicly act as though they
support these norms even when they personally reject them. Employees are likely
to be loath to challenge the MCC norms if they believe them to be widely
embraced. In fact, compared to other norms, the MCC may be especially hard to
challenge because doing so may be seen as weak and whiny—complaints by wimpy
losers who “can't cut it.”
VARIANTS OF MCCS
As gender scholars have noted, masculinity is neither universal nor monolithic.
Rather, masculinities may differ by location and vary by dimensions such as race
and ethnicity, social class, etc. Accordingly, MCC may not always and everywhere
be the same, but rather will vary from one context to the next. For example, in
any given workplace some dimensions of the contest may be more salient or
central than others to winning the competition. In addition, the MCC's form will
likely be shaped by which resources are even available to play the game or which
resources signify achieving dominance in the particular setting. For example,
among computer programmers the contest may center on the number of hours worked
(put work first), whereas for firefighters an individual's readiness to run into
a burning building (strength and stamina, show no weakness; Cooper, 2000).
Reid, O'Neill, and Blair-Loy (2018) conducted a comparative case analysis of
three male-dominated occupations—consulting, firefighting, and business
executives—to examine such variations across occupations. They found important
differences in how MCCs were enacted based on three occupational features: the
structure and organization of teams, the temporal structure of work, and core
tasks. For example, because firefighters work in shifts, with clear demarcations
between when they are on and off the clock, the put work first norm was less
salient than for consultants and executives who are expected to work long hours.
Yet, even among consultants, for whom 24/7 availability and work devotion are
commonplace, team dynamics exacerbated or curtailed this norm. Some teams
prioritized work/life balance and worked together to enable team members to meet
family responsibilities. Thus, MCCs are neither inevitable nor are MCC norms
universal; rather, MCCs can be more or less intense and masculine norms can be
exacerbated or attenuated depending on occupational features that favor specific
dimensions as the means for proving one's masculinity.
Because work is a primary site where men must portray a masculine image of
themselves to others, we expect MCC are more likely to exist in historically
male work environments such as the military or the tech industry. Just as sexual
harassment occurs more frequently in male-dominated work environments, so too
should masculinity contests. Two papers in the current issue found some support
for this claim. Glick et al. (2018) showed that MCC scores positively (though
weakly) correlated with perceived percentage of men (vs. women) in leadership
positions. Additionally, Munsch et al. (2018) showed that workers in jobs with a
higher percentage of men experienced greater pluralistic ignorance: They were
more likely to believe that their coworkers endorsed MCC norms much more than
they themselves did.
CHANGING MCCS
The last two papers in this special issue address ways to change MCCs. Rawski
and Workman-Stark (2018) review how currently used training interventions to
prevent or remedy negative effects associated with MCCs (e.g., sexual
harassment) tend to fail or even backfire (e.g., create more harassment) in
policing organizations. They argue that men in high MCC organizations are more
likely to react negatively to commonplace interventions and offer new ways to
conceptualize trainings aimed at creating organizational change. Finally, Ely
and Kimmel's (2018) concluding paper considers how the research featured in this
special issue refutes the notion of rational economic man and instead
underscores the deeply emotional nature of men's “gender doings” at work. From
there, they offer possible ways forward for organizational practice and policy
aimed at changing undesirable workplace cultures.
CONTRIBUTIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Researchers and practitioners have spent decades discussing why women and
minorities continue to be so underrepresented in well-paid occupations and
positions of leadership, despite legislation passed over 50 years ago outlawing
sex and race discrimination at work (1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII) and
decades of diversity initiatives. A proliferation of studies, books, seminars,
and consultants have offered explanations and solutions for the stalled gender
revolution. Ely and Meyerson (2000) summarized three common approaches to
addressing the problem. One approach—fixing the women—assumes that women lack
the confidence and skills to succeed in male-dominated domains, and need special
training to adapt and compete (e.g., Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Kay & Shipman,
2014; Sandberg, 2013). Another—valuing the feminine—assumes that women have
unique qualities to bring to traditionally male domains, leading to
interventions that promote the value of diversity in improving creativity and
performance (e.g., Bart & McQueen, 2013; Woolley & Malone, 2011), but
inadvertently reify stereotypes (e.g., valuing what is stereotyped in different
groups). A third approach—addressing implicit bias—assumes the problem lies with
accidental bias in selection and promotion, leading to bias training sessions
for decision makers that teach them to learn to recognize and avoid their biases
when evaluating employees (e.g., Devine, Forscher, Austin, & Cox, 2012;
Lebrecht, Pierce, Tarr, & Tanaka, 2009).
Despite the popular and intuitive appeal of these approaches, they have not
yielded much progress to date. Some women have made it in male-dominated roles,
but women still comprise a small fraction of top leaders and occupations remain
highly segregated by sex, with male-dominated occupations paid more than
female-dominated ones, even when all else (e.g., education and training) is
equal. In other words, women's progress has been uneven, and in many ways it has
stalled (England, 2010). Women now comprise 57% of college graduates (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2016) and almost half (46.8%) of the U.S.
workforce (U.S. Department of Labor, 2017), but make up only 5% of CEO positions
in the S&P 500 (Catalyst, 2018), 15.1% of architects and engineers, 21.3% of
employees in protective service occupations, and 4.7% of those employed in the
natural resources, construction, and maintenance sectors (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2017). Most women are clustered in “pink collar” jobs, representing 87.6%
of employees in healthcare support occupations; 94.5% of secretaries and
administrative assistants; and 95% of teaching assistants, kindergarten, and
elementary school teachers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2017).
The three popular approaches to addressing the underrepresentation of women in
male-dominated occupations and roles—fixing the women, valuing the feminine, and
reducing bias—have helped some women succeed, but have ultimately kept intact
organizational cultures that reflect and reinforce norms and values of White and
class-privileged men (Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Williams et al., 2016a). In this
special issue, we propose that a key reason why the workplace gender revolution
has stalled is that work remains the site of masculinity contests among men. To
the extent that men's status at work depends on perceptions of their masculinity
and performance as men, they are motivated to prove their manhood in the
workplace, often at the expense and exclusion of women and non-hegemonic men.
These workplace gender pressures make organizational culture change difficult,
dooming many workplace diversity efforts and making gender equality in
caregiving roles elusive (Williams et al., 2016). Methods of proving masculinity
are likely to vary across domains and occupations, but the general criteria of
physical and social dominance in men, and a lack of weakness and vulnerability,
remain highly valued qualities in workplaces marked by an MCC.
This issue presents an integrated set of studies that examine norms and values
in MCCs. It examines how even when “what it takes to succeed” in most workplaces
may appear neutral on the surface, these values may in actuality engage gender
identities so that “real men” are the ones most likely to thrive. In this
article, we conceptualized MCCs in organizations, and the following papers
develop and validate a measure to study them (Glick et al., 2018), examine some
of their consequences (Alonso, 2018; Glick et al., 2018; Matos et al., 2018;
Rawski & Workman-Stark, 2018), explain why they persist (Kuchynka et al., 2018;
Munsch et al., 2018), show how MCCs may vary by occupation (Reid et al., 2018),
and discuss what might be done to address or change them (Ely & Kimmel, 2018;
Rawski & Workman-Stark, 2018).
This special issue should be seen as a beginning. We have only just started to
demonstrate the power of thinking about work as a masculinity contest, and how
this lens on organizational culture can predict meaningful consequences for
organizations and individuals, as well as how understanding the MCC's dynamics
may offer opportunities for intervention and change. This research raises many
more questions than it resolves. Questions for future research include
investigating how MCCs develop, including when MCC norms go from being held by a
minority of individuals to becoming institutional norms, and what role do
leaders and occupations play in fostering MCCs. Also important is further
exploration of how MCC norms vary by occupation or industry, by the demographic
characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation) of
those employed by an organization, and by the country or culture in which the
company or organization is located. Needed, too, is further exploration of the
widespread and seemingly false assumption that MCCs help organizations achieve
their business or other organizational goals.
Also important is further exploration of exactly how masculinity contests are
fought by individuals vying for power. This question may best be addressed via
qualitative research or analyzing biographies and organizational histories
through the MCC lens. This volume begins to sketch out ideas about how MCCs are
sustained (e.g., through pluralistic ignorance) but exactly how are they
enforced? For example, are dominant men allowed to violate some aspects of the
MCC with impunity (e.g., get away with taking a leave)? What kinds of contests
take place between men from dominant versus marginalized groups, and what kinds
of contests take place within marginalized groups of men and women, to define
hierarchies between and within them? How are women and marginalized men policed
into the helpmate role expected of them?
Conversely, exploring the exceptional women and people of color who have managed
to win in an MCC, despite the odds, might reveal effective strategies by which
members of marginalized groups might advance in MCC workplaces. Does the success
of these exceptional individuals’ change or reinforce MCC norms? On the one
hand, successful women and minority members may provide counterexamples to
hegemonically masculine norms about success. On the other hand, they may
overshoot these norms by behaving in even more masculine ways than others to
prove their mettle, and their success stories may be used by leadership to
justify the organization's practices, policies, and masculine norms as fair.
Much more work will be required to understand how and why MCC norms vary (e.g.,
between and among industries, occupations, and countries). What structural
characteristics are associated with MCCs? For example, the masculinity contest
dimensions at play in any given organization may depend on the resources
available and what is at stake. It may also depend on larger macroeconomic
trends such as levels of income and wealth inequality, or the availability of
social welfare supports. Occupational characteristics may focus the contest on
some dimensions rather than others, such strength and stamina in physically
demanding jobs, put work first in jobs structured around working long hours, or
dog-eat-dog in occupations structured to promote internal competition (e.g.,
sales commissions). And, when occupations allow men to prove masculinity on one
dimension, are they permitted to violate masculine norms on other dimensions?
For example, do men in physically demanding occupations who embody strength and
stamina feel that the masculinity box is sufficiently checked to allow more
freedom with respect to the other masculine norms? Do men in high-paying
occupations focus on financial competition, or do they engage in compensatory
masculinity by emphasizing the aspects of masculinity called into question by
their occupational choice, such as athleticism?
Personal experience has shown us that the masculinity contest at work is a
touchy subject (Berdahl, 2015; Canadian Association of University Teachers,
2015). Yet, it is important to begin the discussion. We hope this special issue
encourages readers to look at organizations through a new lens that provides
insights for practitioners and organizational leaders as well as academics.
Further, we hope that the concepts and tools (especially the MCC scale) provided
here spur future research. In both cases, we believe that understanding the MCC
better will help practitioners and researchers to find ways to promote healthier
workplaces in which people are able to thrive based on genuine and meaningful
contributions to work, rather than the ability to win masculinity contests.
1 The team met four times over the course of three years (2014 to 2017) in
Vancouver, British Columbia, and included the authors in this special issue in
addition to Janine Benedet, Victoria Brescoll, Elizabeth Croft, Cynthia Emrich,
Elizabeth Hirsh, Fiona Macfarlane, Corinne Moss-Racusin, Lakshmi Ramarajan, Toni
Schmader, and Sheryl Staub-French, each of whom attended at least one meeting.
BIOGRAPHIES
* JENNIFER L. BERDAHL (PhD, University of Illinois) is the Professor of
Leadership Studies: Gender and Diversity at the University of British
Columbia's Sauder School of Business. Prior to joining UBC, she held
full-time faculty positions at the University of California, Berkeley, and
the University of Toronto. Her work has shed light on the social psychology
of gender, power, and harassment at work and has informed the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and discrimination cases in both the United
States and Canada. She coedited the Journal of Social Issues’ volume on the
flexibility stigma (2013) and edited a special issue of Social Justice
Research on social power (2008).
* MARIANNE COOPER (PhD, University of California, Berkeley) is a senior
research scholar at Stanford University's Vmware Women's Leadership
Innovation Lab. She is also an affiliate at the Stanford Center on Poverty
and Inequality. Her book, Cut Adrift: Families in Insecure Times, examines
how families are coping in an insecure age. Her research focuses on gender,
work, diversity and inclusion, economic inequality, and emotions. She was the
lead researcher for Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl
Sandberg. She is an author of the Lean In & McKinsey Women in the Workplace
reports, a contributing writer to the Atlantic, and a LinkedIn influencer.
* PETER GLICK (PhD, University of Minnesota) is the Henry Merritt Wriston
Professor in the Social Sciences at Lawrence University. He has also taught
at Northwestern University in the Kellogg School of Management and executive
education at Harvard University. The Harvard Business Review recognized
the stereotype content model (codeveloped with Susan Fiske, Princeton, and
Amy Cuddy, Harvard) as a “breakthrough idea for 2009.” His work on ambivalent
sexism (with Susan Fiske) received the Allport Prize for best paper on
intergroup relations. He has coedited or coauthored three books, including
the SAGE Handbook of Prejudice.
* ROBERT W. LIVINGSTON (PhD, The Ohio State University) has served on the
faculty of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government since
2015. Prior to his appointment at Harvard, he held full-time professorships
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Kellogg School of Management at
Northwestern University, and the University of Sussex where he was also
Director of the Centre for Leadership, Ethics and Diversity (LEAD). His
research on the challenges facing women and minority leaders (e.g., the
“Teddy Bear Effect”) has been published in multiple top tier journals and has
appeared in prominent media outlets. He also serves as a diversity consultant
for wide array of local, state, and federal agencies, nonprofit
organizations, and Fortune 500 corporations.
* JOAN C. WILLIAMS (JD, Harvard) is Hastings Foundation Chair at the University
of California, Hastings College of the Law. She spearheaded two prior special
issues of the Journal of Social issues, one on the flexibility stigma and one
on the maternal wall (for which she shared the Distinguished Publication
Award of the Association for Women in Psychology in 2004). In 2018, she
received an honorary doctorate in psychology from Utrecht University. She has
written 11 books and over 90 academic articles and book chapters. Awards
include the Families and Work Institute's Work Life Legacy Award (2014), the
American Bar Foundation's Outstanding Scholar Award (2012), and the American
Bar Association's Margaret Brent Women Award for Lawyers of Achievement
(2006).
REFERENCES
* Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered
organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139– 158.
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary
Sociology, 21, 565– 569.
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of
colorblindness. New York, NY: New Press.
Google Scholar
* Alonso, N. (2018). Playing to win: Male-male sex-based harassment and the
masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 477– 499.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don't ask: Negotiation and the
gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Bart, C. & McQueen, G. (2013). Why women make better directors. International
Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 8, 93– 99.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Berdahl, J. L. (August 16, 2015). Academic freedom and UBC. Retrieved from
http://jberdahl.blogspot.com/2015/08/academic-freedom-and-ubc.html
Google Scholar
* Berdahl, J. L. (2007a). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in
the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 641– 658.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159319
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Berdahl, J. L. (2007b). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 425– 437. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.425
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Berdahl, J. L. & Min, J. A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace
consequences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 18, 141– 152.
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Berdahl, J. L. & Aquino, K. (2009). Sexual behavior at work: Fun or folly?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 34– 47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012981
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Blair-Loy, M. (2005). Competing devotions: Career and family among women
executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Web of Science®Google Scholar
* Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to
action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 82–
86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402669
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Wasti, S.
A. (2009). Precarious manhood and physical aggression. Personal and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623– 634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331161
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: And what it's done for us lately. In
R. Brannon & D. Davids (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority 419 (pp.
1−40). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Google Scholar
* Brescoll, V. L. & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status
conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological
Science, 19, 268– 275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in
the sociology of men and masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8, 246– 258.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12134
Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
* Britton, D. M. & Logan, L. (2008). Gendered organizations: Progress and
prospects. Sociology Compass, 2, 107– 121.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00071.x
Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
* Canadian Association of University Teachers (October 15, 2015). Investigation
concludes UBC leadership violated academic freedom. Retrieved from
https://www.caut.ca/latest/2015/10/investigation-concludes-ubc-leadership-violated-academic-freedom.
Google Scholar
* Carbado, D. W., & Gulati, M. (2013). Acting white? Rethinking race in
“post-racial” America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
* Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. (1985). Towards a new sociology of
masculinity. Theory and Society, 14, 551– 604.
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Catalyst (2018). Women CEOs of the S&P 500. Retrieved from
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500
Google Scholar
* Cheng, C. (1996). “ We choose not to compete”: The “merit” discourse in the
selection process, and Asian and Asian American men and their masculinity. In
C. Cheng (Ed.), Masculinities in organizations (pp. 177– 200). Thousand Oaks,
CA, London: Sage.
Google Scholar
* Collinson, D. L. & Hearn, J. (1994). Naming men as men: Implications for
work, organization and management. Gender, Work and Organization 1, 2– 22.
Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
* Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual
politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
* Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking
the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829– 859.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Cooper, M. (2000). Being the “go-to guy”: Fatherhood, masculinity and the
organization of work in Silicon Valley. Qualitative Sociology, 23, 379– 405.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005522707921
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Cooper, M. (2014). Cut adrift: Families in insecure times. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Cuddy, A. J., Wolf, E. B., Glick, P., Crotty, S., Chong, J., & Norton, M. I.
(2015). Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype
content. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 62– 635.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000027
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Derks, B., Ellemers, N., van Laar, C. & de Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist
organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social
Psychology, 50, 519– 535. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X525280
Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012).
Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking
intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1267– 1278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* DuRocher, K. (2011). Raising racists: The socialization of children in the
Jim Crow South. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350– 383.
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Ely, R. J. & Kimmel, M. (2018). Thoughts on the workplace as a masculinity
contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 628– 634.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2010). An organizational approach to undoing
gender: The unlikely case of offshore oil platforms. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 30, 3– 34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.002
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A
new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 22, 105– 153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22004-2
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender &
Society, 24, 149– 166.
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Ezzell, M. E. (2016). Healthy for whom? Males, men, and masculinity: A
reflection on the doing (and study) of dominance. In C. J. Pascoe & T.
Bridges (Eds.), Exploring masculinities: Identity, inequality, continuity,
and change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
* Faniko, K., Ellemers, N., Derks, B. & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2017). Nothing
changes, really: Why women who break the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 638– 651.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217695551
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Social power. In A. Kruglanski & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles ( 2nd ed.,
pp. 678– 692). New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
* Fowler, S. (2017: February 19). Reflecting on one very, very strange year at
Uber. Retrieved from
https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber
Google Scholar
* Gee, B., Peck, D., & Wong, J. (2015). Hidden in plain sight: Asian American
leaders in Silicon Valley. The Ascend Foundation. Retrieved from
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ascendleadership.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Research/HiddenInPlainSight_Paper_042.pdf
Google Scholar
* Glick, P., Berdahl, J. L., & Alonso, N. M. (2018). Development and validation
of the masculinity contest culture scale. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3),
449– 476.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C.,
Manganelli, A. M., Pek, J., Huang, L., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Castro, Y. R.,
D'Avila Pereira, M. L., Willemsen, T. M., Brunner, A., Six-Materna, I, &
Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict
gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 713– 728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Hamada, T. (1996). Unwrapping Euro-American masculinity in a Japanese
multinational corporation. In C. Cheng (Ed.), Masculinities in organizations
(pp. 160– 176), Thousand Oaks, London: Sage.
Google Scholar
* Iacuone, D. (2005). “Real men are tough guys”: Hegemonic masculinity and
safety in the construction industry. The Journal of Men's Studies, 13, 247–
266. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1302.247
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Isaac, M. (2017, February 22). Inside Uber's aggressive, unrestrained
workplace culture. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html
Google Scholar
* Kang, S. K., DeCelles, K. A., Tilcsik, A., & Jun, S. (2016). Whitened
Résumés: Race and self-presentation in the labor market. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 61, 469– 502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216639577
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Kay, K., & Shipman, C. (2014). The confidence code: The science and art of
self-assurance: What women should know. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Google Scholar
* Kellogg, K. C. (2011). Challenging operations: Medical reform and resistance
in surgery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Kerfoot, D., & Knights, D. (1993). Management, masculinity and manipulation:
From paternalism to corporate strategy in financial services in Britain.
Journal of Management Studies, 30, 659– 678.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Kimmel, M. (1986). Toward men's studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 29,
517– 529.
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Kimmel, M. (2006). Manhood in America: A cultural history ( 2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
* Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Puryear, C. (2018).
Zero-sum thinking and the masculinity contest: Perceived intergroup
competition and workplace gender bias. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 529–
550.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Kupers, K. A. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health
treatment in prison. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 713– 724.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20105
Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Lebrecht, S., Pierce, L. J., Tarr, M. J., & Tanaka, J. W. (2009). Perceptual
other-race training reduces implicit race bias. PLOS One, 4(1), e4215.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004215
CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Williams, C. M., Hasan, N. T., & Smalley, K. B.
(2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores
on the Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 11, 25– 37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017637
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Livingston, R. W., & Pearce, N. A. (2009). The teddy bear effect: Does having
a baby face benefit black chief executive officers? Psychological Science,
20, 1229– 1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02431.x.
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual
harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853– 870.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P.,
Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the conformity to
masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3– 25.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Martin, P. (2004). Gender as social institution. Social Forces, 82, 1249–
1273. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0081
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Matos, K., O'Neill, O., & Lei, X. (2018). Toxic leadership and the
masculinity contest culture: How “win or die” cultures breed abusive
leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 500– 528.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Messerschmidt, J. W. (1995). Managing to kill: Masculinities and the space
shuttle challenger explosion. Masculinities, 3(4), 1– 22.
Google Scholar
* Messerschmidt, J. W. (2018). Hegemonic masculinity: Formulation,
reformulation, and amplification. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Google Scholar
* Meyerson, D. E., Ely, R. J., & Wernick, L. (2007). Disrupting gender,
revising leadership. In D. Rhode & B. Kellerman (Eds.), Women and leadership:
The state of play and strategies for change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
* Michniewicz, K. S., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2014). Men's
(mis)perceptions of the gender threatening consequences of unemployment. Sex
Roles, 70 (3-4), 88– 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0339-3
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2014). Male backlash: penalties for men who violate
gender stereotypes. In R. J. Burke & D. A. Major (Eds.), Gender in
Organizations: Are Men Allies or Adversaries to Women's Career Advancement?
Edward Elgar Publishing.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Munsch, C. L., Weaver, J. R., Bosson, J. K., & O'Connor, L. T. (2018).
Everybody but me: Pluralistic ignorance and the masculinity contest. Journal
of Social Issues, 74(3), 551– 578.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Bachelor's degrees conferred
by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected
years, 1976–77 through 2015–16. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_322.20.asp?current=yes
Google Scholar
* Nelson, J. A. (2012). Would women leaders have prevented the global financial
crisis? Implications for teaching about gender, behavior, and economics
(Working paper No. 11-03). Global Development and Environment Institute.
Retrieved from
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/11-03NelsonWomenLeaders.pdf
Google Scholar
* Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking
and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 36, 923– 936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371949
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Pascoe, C. J. (2007) Dude you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high
school. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Pasco, C. J., & Bridges, T. (2016). Exploring masculinities: Identity,
inequality, continuity, and change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
* Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why some people have it and others don't. New
York, NY: Harper Business.
Google Scholar
* Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out
in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic
women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406– 413.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00454.x
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Pierce, Jennifer L. (1996). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary
law firms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Pleck, J. H. (1974). Men's power with women, other men, and society. In P.P.
Rieker & E. Carmen E (Eds.), The gender gap in psychotherapy (pp. 79– 89).
Boston, MA: Springer.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
* Pratto, F., Pearson, A. R., Lee, I., & Saguy, T. (2008). Power dynamics in an
experimental game. Social Justice Research, 21, 377– 407.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0075-y
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Rawlins, A. (2017). Uber board member resigns after making sexist comment at
meeting about sexism, Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved from
https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/13/technology/business/uber-board-member-resigns/index.html
Google Scholar
* Rawski, S. L., & Workman-Stark, A. L. (2018). Masculinity contest cultures in
policing organizations and recommendations for training interventions.
Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 607– 627.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, 84(4), 67– 71.
Google Scholar
* Reid, E. M., O'Neill, O. A., & Blair-Loy, M. (2018). Masculinity in
male-dominated occupations: How teams, time, and tasks shape masculinity
contests. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 579– 606.
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A
theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender &
Society, 18, 510– 531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction.
Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191– 216.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Risman, B. J., & Davis, G. (2013). From sex roles to gender structure. Gender
& Society, 61, 733– 755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479315
Google Scholar
* Roth, M. L. (2006). Selling women short: Gender and money on Wall Street.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
* Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs
and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629– 645.
CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic
behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157– 176.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status
incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates
prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48, 165– 179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York,
NY: Knopf.
Google Scholar
* Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of a toxic leadership scale
(Master's thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/8176/?sequence=1
Google Scholar
* Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts.
Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277– 295.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115933
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Schwalbe, M. (2014). Manhood acts: Gender and the practices of domination.
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Google Scholar
* Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of
social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Web of Science®Google Scholar
* Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., & Markus, H. R. (2012). It's your choice: How the
middle-class model of independence disadvantages working-class Americans. In
S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank
influences interaction (pp. 87– 106). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Google Scholar
* Sullivann, J., Moss-Racusin, C., Lopez, M. & Williams, K. (2018). Backlash
against gender stereotype-violating preschool children. PLoS ONE 13(4):
e0195503.
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Thompson, E. H. Jr, & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms.
American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531– 543.
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* U.S. Department of Labor (2017). 12 stats about working women. Retrieved from
https://blog.dol.gov/2017/03/01/12-stats-about-working-women
Google Scholar
* Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review
and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men
& Masculinity, 14, 101– 113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R.
(2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,
1325– 1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Weaver, J. R., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Intrepid, imprudent,
or impetuous? The effects of gender threats on men's financial decisions.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 184– 191.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027087
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* West, C., & Zimmerman, D. L. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2),
125– 151.
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Conlon, B., & Wojnowicz, M. T. (2013). Overdoing
gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. American Journal of
Sociology, 118, 980– 1022. https://doi.org/10.1086/668417
CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Williams, J. C. (1999). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and
what to do about it. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
* Williams, J. C. (2013, May 29). Why men work so many hours. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-men-work-so-many-hours
Google Scholar
* Williams, J. C., Berdahl, J. L., & Vandello, J. A. (2016a). Beyond work-life
“integration.” Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 515– 39.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033710
CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Williams, J. C., Blair-Loy, M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural schemas,
social class, and the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 209–
234. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12012
Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Williams, J. C., Li, S., Rincon, R., & Finn, P. (2016b). Climate control:
Gender and racial bias in engineering? Center for Worklife Law. UC Hastings
College of the Law. Retrieved from
https://research.swe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/16-SWE-020-Work-Study-10_20_16-CP.pdf
Google Scholar
* Williams, J. C., Multhaup, M., Li, S., Korn, R. M (2018). You can't change
what you can't see: Interrupting racial & gender bias in the legal
profession. San Francisco, CA: Center for WorkLife Law. UC Hastings College
of the Law.
Google Scholar
* Woolley, A. & Malone, T. (2011). What makes a team smarter? More women.
Harvard Business Review, 89, 32– 33.
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
* Zaloom, C. (2006). Out of the pits: Traders and technology from Chicago to
London. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Web of Science®Google Scholar
CITING LITERATURE
Volume74, Issue3
Special Issue: Work as a Masculinity Contest
September 2018
Pages 422-448
This article also appears in:
* Making the Invisible Visible: Transformative Research and Social Action
* REFERENCES
* RELATED
* INFORMATION
RECOMMENDED
* Thoughts on the Workplace as a Masculinity Contest
Robin J. Ely, Michael Kimmel,
Journal of Social Issues
* Playing to Win: Male–Male Sex‐Based Harassment and the Masculinity Contest
Natalya Alonso,
Journal of Social Issues
* Zero‐Sum Thinking and the Masculinity Contest: Perceived Intergroup
Competition and Workplace Gender Bias
Sophie L. Kuchynka, Jennifer K. Bosson, Joseph A. Vandello, Curtis Puryear,
Journal of Social Issues
* Toxic Leadership and the Masculinity Contest Culture: How “Win or Die”
Cultures Breed Abusive Leadership
Kenneth Matos, Olivia (Mandy) O'Neill, Xue Lei,
Journal of Social Issues
* Development and Validation of the Masculinity Contest Culture Scale
Peter Glick, Jennifer L. Berdahl, Natalya M. Alonso,
Journal of Social Issues
Close Figure Viewer
Return to Figure
Previous FigureNext Figure
Caption
Download PDF
back
© 2022 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
* Our Story
* Our Membership
* Awards
* Policy
* Conferences
* Teaching
© 2022 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
ADDITIONAL LINKS
ABOUT WILEY ONLINE LIBRARY
* Privacy Policy
* Terms of Use
* About Cookies
* Manage Cookies
* Accessibility
* Wiley Research DE&I Statement and Publishing Policies
HELP & SUPPORT
* Contact Us
* Training and Support
* DMCA & Reporting Piracy
OPPORTUNITIES
* Subscription Agents
* Advertisers & Corporate Partners
CONNECT WITH WILEY
* The Wiley Network
* Wiley Press Room
Copyright © 1999-2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved
LOG IN TO WILEY ONLINE LIBRARY
Email or Customer ID
Password
Forgot password?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOG IN WITH YOUR SPSSI MEMBERSHIP
Log in with SPSSI
NEW USER > INSTITUTIONAL LOGIN >
CHANGE PASSWORD
Old Password
New Password
Too Short Weak Medium Strong Very Strong Too Long
PASSWORD CHANGED SUCCESSFULLY
Your password has been changed
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email or Customer ID
Returning user
FORGOT YOUR PASSWORD?
Enter your email address below.
Email or Customer ID
Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password. If you do
not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be
registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.
REQUEST USERNAME
Can't sign in? Forgot your username?
Enter your email address below and we will send you your username
Email or Customer ID
Close
If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with
instructions to retrieve your username
Close crossmark popup