I.S.S.N. 2573-3222 (print)
I.S.S.N. 2573-3230 (online)
Sociology and Social Work Review • Volume 1 • Number 1 • 2017
SSWR
Sociology
and
Social Work
Review
Volume 4 • Number 2
2020
I.S.S.N. 2573-3222 (print)
I.S.S.N. 2573-3230 (online)
Sociology and Social Work Review 2/2020
Gender-based inequalities and discrimination in
professional careers: An overview
Simona Rodat*a
a
Adventus University, Faculty of Theology and Social Sciences, Cernica, Romania
Abstract
The unbalanced gender-specific division of labour emerged as early as the end of the
nineteenth century, when women work was exploited and underpaid in the wage market.
The gendered professional inequalities between women and men continue to persist even
today. The present paper aims to provide an outline of the main concepts used for
analysing gendered inequalities in professional careers and to delineate the most
significant explanations regarding this phenomenon. Besides gender stereotypes and
gender roles, other terms which conceptualize the gender-based inequalities and
discrimination in professional careers are addressed, such as gender pay gap, horizontal
segregation, evaluative discrimination, vertical segregation, glass ceiling, sticky floor, and
gender status beliefs. Furthermore, there are discussed both theoretical economic
approaches, which emphasize the role of human capital and explain discrimination of
women in the labour market by the expectations on their lower productivity, and
theoretical sociological approaches, which highlight other aspects, such as differences in
power, social and cultural norms and values, and take into consideration the importance of
social capital, social interactions and networks, and social closure in professional career
and ascension. In the last part of the paper the key aspects of the debate are emphasized
and some remarks about the necessity of larger, more integrative and practice-oriented
researches in this regard are made.
Keywords: Gender inequality; gender pay gap; gender-based discrimination in
professional careers; human capital; social capital; gendered organizations.
1. The social division of labor and gender inequality. An analytical and
conceptual framework
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, technological developments
responsible for overproduction also led to new forms of rationalized work, which
eventually materialized in the form of Fordism (Hennessy 2000: p. 103).
Heteronormativity has become a historical component of labor, which has amplified both
the social division of labor by gender in the family and at work, and the exploitation of
women’s labor in the wage labor market. Given that heteronormativity involves a
hierarchy of genders, it has served to legitimize and naturalize the gender division of
labor.
*
Simona Rodat, Professor, PhD., E-mail address: simona.rodat@uadventus.ro
110
Simona Rodat
Although women have always worked, the economic role played by women has
focused mainly on “actual work from home, which could be combined with raising
children” (Bergmann 1986: p. 7). This situation eventually led to a dominant feature of
workforce behavior: working women were usually segregated, practicing a few
professions often categorized as “women’s work”, and these professions are among the
worst paid in the labor market (McCarthy Snyder 1994: p. 4).
Through various analogies and associations, socially shared “certainties” about
the “gendering” of work have begun to become matters of self-evidence over time (Ernst
1999: p. 28). This may include the assumption of mental and physical skills and abilities
“given by nature”, the preferences of men and women for certain professions and
behaviors, as well as the idea of gender differences and its consequence: the naturalization
of social inequality between genders (ibidem).
The allocation of men and women to certain activities and professions has been
significantly supported by so-called common-sense knowledge, shared at the social level,
with regard to the characteristic features of women and men. This “knowledge” takes
often the form of gender stereotypes. These are cognitive structures, clichés, through
which certain cultural representations are attributed to genders. Gender stereotypes
include descriptive components – “traditional” assumptions about how men and women
are, what traits they have and how they behave, as well as prescriptive components –
assumptions about how men and women should be or how they should behave (Eckes
2004: p. 165).
Socially shared expectations of how individuals should behave according to the
gender that has been socially assigned to them have often been conceptualized as gender
roles. These are social roles encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes that are
generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for a person based on her
biological or perceived gender. The internalization of gender roles in values and norms is
reproduced in everyday interactions through “doing gender” (West and Zimmerman
1987, Busch and Holst 2012, Ruppert and Voigt 2012).
The application of the knowledge based on stereotypes and thought patterns to
characterize concrete persons can be called stereotyping (Eckes 2004: p. 167). This means
that people unconsciously make simplistic assumptions about others, classify and assign
individuals they come in contact with in certain groups, only based on these clichés or
“cognitive shortcuts” (Seca 2005: p. 628).
However, this stereotypical categorization is not neutral, but involves hierarchy:
in the sense of “expectation states theory” (Berger, Conner and Fisek 1974, Berger et al.
1977), women and men are seen different according to environment and situation in terms
of competence, and therefore a different status is assigned to them in each action situation
(Busch and Holst 2012: p. 83). In this perspective, the masculine gender would be
superior to the feminine one (Ruppert and Voigt 2012: p. 140), and from this idea derives
the “devaluation hypothesis”, according to which the “feminine work” is underestimated
and devaluated, while men (under identical conditions) are attributed higher performance,
productiveness and professional skills (ibidem: p. 140-141). In this regard, occupations
experiencing a significant inflow of female workers are devalued, both in status and in pay
(Busch 2018: p. 1351).
A consequence of these beliefs and practices established over time is that women
and men tend to be segregated in certain professions and sectors of the economy. The
over- or under-representation of a gender in a field has been conceptualized by the term
“horizontal segregation”, a phenomenon that plays a key role in explaining income
111
Sociology and Social Work Review 2/2020
differences between men and women. Since women’s paid labor is devalued, so-called
“female professions” (in other words, professions mostly practiced by women) or less
socially recognized occupational fields (such as those involving nursing and care work)
are also underestimated, and therefore less remunerated. The higher the percentage of
women in a given profession, occupation or trade, the lower the gain in that profession,
occupation or trade (Busch and Holst 2012: p. 84). This interdependence is referred to in
specialized literature by the term “evaluative discrimination” (ibidem).
In addition to horizontal segregation, another form of discrimination against
women in the labor market is the phenomenon of “vertical segregation” (often
denominated also by the term “hierarchical segregation”). It refers to the fact that women
reach the “top” of the professional pyramid much less often than men, in other words,
women reach the management and leading positions of organizations, companies and
business firms much rarer, both in public and private sectors. This phenomenon is also
conceptualized by the expression “glass ceiling”. This metaphor refers to the obstacles
that arise in women’s professional careers and to the invisible barriers that stop their path
to leadership and decision-making positions in organizations. Research in companies and
firms (Hamrick 1994, Wirth 2001, Böing 2009) has often revealed that in many of these
women, regardless of education or skills, failed to exceed a certain level in the hierarchy.
While women are predominantly present at the lower and middle levels of an
organization, they are a minority at the leadership levels.
Another metaphor in the specialized literature used to describe this phenomenon
is that of the “sticky floor” (Wirth 2001). This refers to the factors and forces that compel
women to remain in the lower positions of the organizational pyramids (Bettio and
Verashchagina 2008). Factors that hinder women’s professional advancement include, on
the one hand, “gender status beliefs”, according to which female gender roles are too
incompatible with the demands of a leadership position (Holst and Busch 2009: p. 8), and
on the other hand, the so-called “male power rituals”, in other words, the “verbal and
habitual rules and games of an organization” (Ruppert and Voigt 2012: p. 141), which
include and amplify scepsis about women in leadership positions. Thus, the term “sticky
floor” describes the discriminatory employment pattern that keeps women at the bottom of
the job scale.
In this context, the concept of “gender pay gap” (or “gender wage gap”) is used to
describe gender-based pay gaps. The disadvantage and discrimination of women in terms
of salary has been illustrated and verified by numerous studies and research (Blau, Ferber
and Winkler 2006) and amounted to 23% at European level according to Eurostat 2008
(Holst and Busch 2009: p. 18).
Gender pay gap can be found at all levels of the vertical division of labor. This
distance has not become smaller in recent decades and is therefore a persistent element of
gender inequality. It is also a basic indicator of the unequal social treatment of women in
working life, because in this differentiation of remuneration based on gender are
condensed all the facets of the problem that women have to struggle in their professional
life (Ruppert and Voigt 2012: p. 139).
Subsequently, firms and companies – including modern organizations (Funder,
Dörhöfer and Rauch 2006) – are still far from achieving gender equality. Inequality and
lower status of women in the labor market can be recognized by numerous indicators,
such as: horizontal segregation and concentration of women in underappreciated, devalued
professions and occupations, often categorized as “typically female”; ranking in
organizations according to gender; underestimation of women’s work; differences in
112
Simona Rodat
income between women and men in the same positions and consequently the so-called
“gender pay gap”, i.e. the average difference between the aggregate wages of a man and a
woman, a difference determined only by the different gender; the social, structural,
cultural and ideological barriers that women, unlike men, face in their professional ascent
to leadership positions. It seems that many organizations still resort to traditional practices
(Müller 2013: p. 489) that involve gender role models and stereotyping.
2. Theoretical approaches. Explanations of gender-based professional
inequalities and discrimination
Gender inequalities and gender-based discrimination in people’s professional lives
have been described and explained through various theoretical perspectives in the sociohuman sciences. Especially theoretical approaches in economics and sociology assert
interesting theses, arguing diverse viewpoints and discussing a variety of issues involved.
The main theoretical approaches and explanations regarding gender inequalities in terms
of professional career are outlined below.
2.1 Economic approaches
Economic theories place particular emphasis on human capital. This would be the
decisive factor for justifying inequalities between men and women, inequalities that take
the form of income disparities and professional gender segregation.
The central element of all the models that can be included in the “theory of human
capital” is the idea that the productivity and, therefore, the value of the worker in the labor
market are determined by his/her knowledge and skills (Hinz and Abraham 2005: p. 33).
Education and professional qualifications must be acquired and require capital investment
– not only money, but also time and intellectual effort. These models consider social
actors to be completely rational. Thus, the different investments in human capital of
women and men are interpreted as “the result of rational cost-benefit calculations guided
by preferences” (Busch and Holst 2012: p. 82). This also means that people anticipate
different chances of using human capital. Because women – more than men – place
family-related activities at the center of their lives and take into account the “dead times”
caused by “career breaks” (e.g. due to the birth and raising of children), they choose
(based on rational calculations) especially professions that involve lower costs, but also
lower opportunities, which are better suited to family activities and which do not oppose
possible interruptions caused by maternity. Therefore, women invest in advance less in
human capital. In this way is gender inequality in the labor market explained and analyzed
by the theoretical economic perspectives.
Similarly, the theoretical model of discrimination analyzes the wage
discrimination of women and places the demand for education at the center of the
explanations. According to this model, the existing processes of discrimination in the
labor market, as well as the anticipation of some breaks and, therefore, of “dead times” in
their careers, are significant factors that influence women to invest less in education,
respectively in human capital, contributing, in this way, to perpetuating and intensifying
inequality (Hinz and Abraham 2005: p. 35). The first author who spoke about the
economic model of discrimination was G. S. Becker (1957/1971). According to Becker,
the employers have a “taste for discrimination”, which means that hiring some workers,
such as minority workers, has a disadvantageous value. Therefore, these workers “may
have to ‘compensate’ employers by being more productive at a given wage or,
equivalently, by accepting a lower wage for identical productivity” (Autor 2003: p. 3).
113
Sociology and Social Work Review 2/2020
The statistical discrimination model deals with the relationship between
belonging to a certain group (e.g. women, immigrants, students from certain lower ranked
schools, etc.), expectations about their (lower) productivity, and discrimination arising
from these expectations. In other words, according to this model, employers make hiring,
salary and promotion decisions based on the ‘predicted performance’ of people, and these
predictions are based on gender, race, age, disability. From this point of view, an
individual is attributed the productivity of the group to which he/she belongs statistically,
without taking into consideration his/her real abilities or competencies (Hinz and
Abraham 2005: p. 35)
Although statistical discrimination is unlawful (Autor 2003: p. 11), the more so as
women, minorities, people over the age of 40 and people with disabilities are “protected
groups”, hence employers not being allowed to hire and dismiss them “at will”, in practice
this is a phenomenon that occurs frequently (ibidem). Thus, in this case, a vicious circle
works: the anticipation of a lower remuneration leads to a lower investment in human
capital and hence a lower productivity. This process can be described by the expressions
“self-reinforcement effect” (Hinz and Abraham 2005: p. 36) or “self-fulfilling prophecy”
(Veith 1988: p 36).
In this context it can be mentioned that P. Bourdieu (2005) also considers that the
androcentric perspective is always legitimized by practices that it itself determines. Due to
the fact that the dispositions are the product of the incorporation of prejudices against
women, and this incorporation is naturalized, women can only constantly confirm these
prejudices. This is “the logic of a curse in the strict sense of a pessimistic self-fulfilling
prophecy, which leads to what it itself predicts and results in its own truth” (Bourdieu
2005: p. 62).
2.2 Sociological approaches
Theories and approaches from the perspective of the social sciences, on the other
hand, take into consideration the mutual relations and dependencies between the labor
market and other spheres of society, and emphasize in their explanations these
interrelationships and interdependencies. Also, in such approaches, explanatory factors of
inequality such as norms, values, evaluations, and social differences in power are
highlighted and analyzed. Theoretical conceptualizations target, for example, labor and
personnel in the central and marginal areas of the economy, as well as the so-called “dual
economy”, to which two sectors belong: the core and the periphery (Hinz and Abraham
2005: p. 42). While “core” companies belong to key industries and offer jobs accordingly,
with stable employment opportunities and high wages, “periphery” companies have little
power and offer lower paid and unstable jobs (ibidem). Minorities and –
disproportionately – many women work mainly in this peripheral segment of the labor
market.
Power differences in the labor market are explained not only by belonging to a
certain social class or by monopoly positions, but also by social attributions and
stereotypes, a common example from this point of view being the unfavorable treatment
of women. In this regard, the “cultural system of the two genders” or “gendered
organizations” are discussed. Gender, as well as belonging to a certain ethnic group, is
among the significant factors used in social definition processes, these processes being an
essential source for unequal power both in social relations in general and in the labor
market (ibidem: p. 44).
114
Simona Rodat
At the social level, unpaid household and family work is allocated to women,
while men are assigned paid work. This pattern, called Male-Breadwinner-Modell,
reproduces the gendered division of labor and presents an “ideal of the family” in which
men provide, earning a salary for the entire family, while women do domestic labor and
care for family members. This results further on in assignments of skills and abilities that
act to the detriment of women in the labor market (Busch and Holst 2012: p. 83). These
socially established attributions and normative impositions are learned in the process of
gender socialization, through which the “masculine” and “feminine” models or ideals are
imprinted and internalized (Veith 1988: p 34). In this way, both gender-specific attitudes
or gender-based preferences for certain professions (hence the idea of “gendered
professions”), and the practices that discriminate women in organizations and in the labor
market in general can be explained (Busch and Holst 2012: p. 83).
Another significant sociological approach is the perspective of social networks.
Social networks are determinant factors that influence interchange relations in the labor
market. These social relations of individual social actors and their general structure are
also known as social capital. Various studies (see Hinz and Abraham 2005: p. 52) have
shown empirically that in the search for a job an essential role is played by the informal
contacts of a person. There can be “strong ties” and “weak ties” in the social networks
(Granovetter 1973). The more the ties of an individual are, especially the more, diverse
and numerous “weak” and “distant” ties of a person are, the higher his or her chances of
finding a job (Scheidegger and Osterloh 2005: p. 124). In terms of career path and career
ascension of a person within an organization, positioning in a network of social
relationships is still more important than the quality of the tie (“strong” vs. “weak”) (Hinz
and Abraham 2005: p. 52). Networks build the channels through which information is
transmitted, and certain positions within the network, such as “bridges” and “structural
holes”, play a key role (ibidem). Therefore, relationships within the social network play a
central role in the process of professional career development. They “channelize the flow
of resources, regulate access to job opportunities, provide guidance and support, enhance
influence and reputation and increase the likelihood – as well as the pace – of promotion”
(Scheidegger and Osterloh 2005: p. 123-124).
Social networks can play a great role in job markets by providing assorted
matching, i.e. employers can find employees with similar characteristics by searching
them through networks, information asymmetries, in hiring models with adverse selection,
as well as by simple insurance motives, since networks are helping to cope with the
uncertainty determined by the turnovers of the labor market (Calvo-Armengol and
Jackson 2004: p. 442-443). Because in flexible organizations the interactions and
possibilities for choosing interactive relationships are more numerous, in such
organizations the relationships in the social network are more important than in
bureaucratic organizations, where the freedom to choose contacts at work is less
(Scheidegger and Osterloh 2005).
Another aspect of particular relevance underlined by sociological approaches is
the quality of information. Social closure, a phenomenon encountered in all areas of
society, refers to the processes by which members of a group preserve their resources by
drawing boundaries, building identities and excluding others or blocking access to others
to their own group. The sociological phenomenon of social closure is also described in a
structural perspective through social networks (Hinz and Abraham 2005: p. 56). The
perspective of networks allows a reconstruction of the advantages and disadvantages of
closed or open social systems and groups. With regard to gender differences in
115
Sociology and Social Work Review 2/2020
organizations, it has long been recognized (Kanter 1977, apud Scheidegger and Osterloh
2005: p. 123) that women have more limited access to informal networks than men. The
question remains, for which further investigations are needed, to what extent the relative
lack of power of women in organizations and their lower share in management positions
are correlated with their precarious participation and insufficient integration into informal
professional networks.
Despite the relevance of all these aspects, the investigation of social networks in
the empirical research of the labor market has still remained poorly developed (Hinz and
Abraham 2005). Also, in explaining gender differences in organizations, little attention
has been paid so far to the role of interaction networks (Scheidegger and Osterloh 2005).
3. Conclusions
The unbalanced gender division of the labor force has made its presence felt since
the end of the 19th century, when women’s labor in the paid labor market was exploited
and inappropriately paid, below men’s wage rates. Numerous research and statistics
highlight the underestimation of women’s work. The “devaluation hypothesis” describes
the situation in the labor market in which women’s work is underestimated and devalued,
while men with the same training and skills as women are assigned superior performance
and professional skills. Gender roles, gender stereotypes and stereotyping that are applied
to specific people are proving to be the social factors that continue to contribute to the
persistence of gender imbalances in the labor market.
Professional gender inequalities can be analyzed from different theoretical
perspectives. Economic approaches, such as the theory of human capital, the
discrimination model and the statistical discrimination model, are distinguished in their
explanations by highlighting human capital and assigned expectations, based only on
belonging to a certain gender. On the other hand, approaches in the social sciences
emphasize the importance of issues such as social differences in power, but also of the
social and cultural norms, values and evaluations at the social level. In this context, terms
such as “dual economy”, “cultural system of the two genders”, “gendered organizations”
and “gendered professions” are used in order to explain gender inequalities and
differences of power in the labor market. Moreover, through the analyses from the
theoretical perspective of social networks, the role of interactive social networks and of
social capital is highlighted, both in finding a job and in career and professional
advancement. As there is a process of mutual interdependence between the labor market
and social networks, examining the process of formation and evolution of social networks
can provide an overview of how the labor market works and how the social structures coevolve, and how they mutually influence each other.
Although much progress has been made recently in harmonizing the opportunities
of women and men in the labor market, many gender inequalities in professional careers
still persist. Also, in terms of empirical studies, there are still research questions that need
further investigation. These refer, on the one hand, to finding more detailed explanations
regarding the factors that maintain gender differences in the workplace, given that at legal
and ‘objective’ level gender equality is – or should be – already a fact. On the other hand,
more studies are needed to bring practical and applicable results, useful in formulating
measures and taking effective action to achieve professional equality between women and
men.
116
Simona Rodat
References:
Autor, D. H. (2003). Lecture Note: The Economics of Discrimination – Theory
[online]. Available: https://economics.mit.edu/files/553 [accessed 3 December 2020].
Becker, G. S. (1971) The Economics of Discrimination. Second Edition. Chicago,
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Berger, J., Conner, T. L. and Fisek, M. H. (Eds.) (1974) Expectation states theory:
A theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. and Zelditch, M. (1977) Status
characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier.
Bergmann, B. R. (1986) The Economic Emergence of Women, New York: Basic
Books.
Bettio, F. and Verashchagina, A. (Eds.) (2008) Frontiers in the Economics of
Gender, London: Routledge/ Routledge Siena Studies in Political Economy.
Blau, F. D., Ferber, M. A. and Winkler, A. E. (2006) The Economics of Women,
Men and Work, New Jersey: Pearson.
Bourdieu, P. (2005). Die männliche Herrschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag.
Böing, S. (2009) Grundlagen zur Geschlechts- und Genderproblematik in
Unternehmen, Köln: Josef EUL Verlag.
Busch, A. and Holst, E. (2012) “Berufliche Geschlechtersegregation und
Verdienste in Führungspositionen”. In Krell, G., Rastetter, D. and Reichel, K. eds.,
Geschlecht macht Karriere in Organisationen. Analysen zur Chancengleichheit in Fachund Führungspositionen, Berlin: Edition Sigma, 81-98.
Busch, F. (2018) “Occupational Devaluation Due to Feminization? Causal
Mechanics, Effect Heterogeneity, and Evidence from the United States, 1960 to 2010”,
Social Forces, 96(3), 1351-1376.
Calvo-Armengol, A. and Jackson, M. O. (2004) “The Effects of Social Networks
on Employment and Inequality”, The American Economic Review, 94(3), 426-454.
Eckes, T. (2004) “Geschlechterstereotype: Von Rollen, Identitäten und
Vorurteilen”. In Becker, R. and Kortendiek, B. eds., Handbuch Frauen- und
Geschlechterforschung. Theorie, Methoden, Empirie, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, 165-176.
Ernst, S. (1999) Geschlechterverhältnisse und Führungspositionen. Eine
figurations-soziologische Analyse der Stereotypenkonstruktion, Opladen, Wiesbaden:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Funder, M., Dörhöfer, S. and Rauch, C. (Eds.) (2005) Jenseits der
Geschlechterdifferenz?
Geschlechterverhältnisse
in
der
Informationsund
Wissensgesellschaft, München, Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Funder, M., Dörhöfer, S. and Rauch, C. (2006) Geschlechteregalität – mehr
Schein als Sein. Geschlecht, Arbeit und Interessenvertretung in der Informations- und
Telekommunikationsindustrie, Berlin: Edition Sigma.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). “The Strength of Weak Ties”, American Journal of
Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Hamrick, F. (1994) “Perceptions of Equity: Career Women and Discrimination”.
In Wolfe Konek, C. and Kitch, S. L. eds., Women and Careers. Issues and Challenges,
Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 97-137.
Hennessy, R. (2000) Profit and Pleasure. Sexual Identities in Late Capitalism,
New York, London: Routledge.
117
Sociology and Social Work Review 2/2020
Hinz, T. and Abraham, M. (2005) “Theorien des Arbeitsmarktes: Ein Überblick”.
In Abraham, M. and Hinz, T. eds., Arbeitsmarktsoziologie. Probleme, Theorien,
empirische Befunde, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 17-68.
Holst, E. and Busch, A. (2009) Der „Gender Pay Gap” in Führungspositionen
der Privatwirtschaft in Deutschland, Berlin: German Socio-Economic Panel Study
(SOEP) DIW.
Kanter, R. M. (1977) “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex
Ratios and Responses to Token Women”, American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990.
Krell, G., Rastetter, D. and Reichel, K. (Eds.) (2012) Geschlecht macht Karriere
in Organisationen. Analysen zur Chancen-gleichheit in Fach- und Führungspositionen,
Berlin: Edition Sigma.
McCarthy Snyder, N. (1994) “Career Women in Perspective: The Wichita
Sample”. In Konek, C. W. and Kitch, S. L. eds., Women and Careers. Issues and
Challenges, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1-18.
Müller, U. (2013) “Zwischen Licht und Grauzone: Frauen in
Führungspositionen”. In Müller, U., Riegraf, B. and Wilz, S. M. eds., Geschlecht und
Organisation, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 469-494.
Ruppert, A. and Voigt, M. (2012) “Geschlechtsunterschiede in der
Verhandlungsführung – Schlüssel für die Karriere?”. In Krell, G., Rastetter, D. and
Reichel, K. eds., Geschlecht macht Karriere in Organisationen. Analysen zur
Chancengleichheit in Fach- und Führungspositionen, Berlin: Edition Sigma, 139-156.
Scheidegger, N. and Osterloh, M. (2005) “Karriere und Geschlecht – eine
netzwerk-theoretische Analyse”. In Funder, M., Dörhöfer, S. and Rauch, C. eds., Jenseits
der Geschlechterdifferenz? Geschlechterverhältnisse in der Informations- und
Wissensgesellschaft, München, Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag, 123-137.
Seca, J.-M. (2005) “Stereotip”. In Ferréol, G. and Jucquois, G. eds., Dicționarul
alterității și al relațiilor interculturale, Iași: Polirom, 627-631.
Veith, M. (1988) Frauenkarriere im Management. Einstiegsbarrieren und
Diskriminierungs-mechanismen, Frankfurt/Main, New York: Campus Verlag.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1987) “Doing Gender”, Gender & Society, 1(2),
125-151.
Wirth, L. (2001) Breacking Through the Glass Ceiling. Women in Management,
Geneva: International Labour Office.
Wolfe Konek, C. and Kitch, S. L. (Eds.) (1994) Women and Careers. Issues and
Challenges, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Received 03 December 2020, accepted 23 December 2020
118