Characteristics of women’s careers: international studies review

Introduction. Career development has become one of the most significant areas of human resource management in modern organizations. Despite considerable progress in increasing the representation of women in various industries and also a multiplication of women holding senior positions, today, the segregation of the labour market persists. Women and men are unevenly distributed in such fields as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; there are differences in wages and career advancement. Traditional career models have certain limitations in research and, therefore, require revision and updating.

Purpose. Generalization of foreign experience of gender studies in the field of women’s professional careers.

Materials and methods. The scientific review is presented by a systematic analysis of foreign gender studies over the past 10-15 years.

Theoretical justification. The authors describe the main methods of studies examining women’s career advancement and also consider the causes of gender segregation, such as career choice, gender discrimination in employment and the workplace, and the phenomenon of the “glass ceiling”. Factors influencing the choice of career strategies are competitiveness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, the influence of cultural perceptions of gender roles, self-stereotyping, the presence or absence of role models, the social costs of women’s careers and the possibility of their recognition by society as professionals.

Discussion and conclusion. A possible way to solve the problem of women’s career advancement may be to reduce the pressure of gender stereotypes, including even the distribution of household and child-rearing responsibilities and, ultimately, contributing to the improvement of well-being and life quality in general.

1. Barbulescu, R., Bidwell, M. (2013). Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science, 24(3), 737–756. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0757

2. Boulis, A. K., Jacobs, J. A. (2008). The Changing Face of Medicine: Women Doctors and the Evolution of Health Care in America. New York: Cornell University Press.

3. Brundage, M. R. (2016). Women's inherent and learned leadership characteristics: Navigation to success in educational leadership roles (Dr. dissertation). Phoenix: Grand Canyon University.

4. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730. http://doi.org/10.1086/321299

5. England, P., Li, S. (2006). Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971–2002. Gender & Society, 20(5), 657–677.

6. Fernandez, R. M., Campero, S. (2017). Gender sorting and the glass ceiling in high–tech firms. IRL Review, 70(1), 73–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793916668875

7. Fernandez, R. M., Friedrich, C. (2011). Gender sorting at the application interface. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50(4), 591–609. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.2011.00654.x

8. Fernandez, R. M., Rubineau, B. (2019). Network recruitment and the glass ceiling: Evidence from two firms. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5(3), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2019.5.3.05

9. Flanders, M. L. (1994). Breakthrough: The Career Woman's Guide to Shattering the Glass Ceiling. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

10. Franz-Odendaal, A. (2012). The importance of being confident; gender, career choice, and willingness to compete. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 82–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.013

11. Franz-Odendaal, T. A., Blotnicky, K. A., Joy, P. (2020). Math self–efficacy and the likelihood of pursuing a STEM–based career: a gender–based analysis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20, 538–556.

12. Frear, K. A., Paustian–Underdahl, S. C., Heggestad, E. D. et al. (2019). Gender and career success: A typology and analysis of dual paradigms. Journal of organizational behavior, 40(4), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2338

13. Fuentes Cuiñas, A. A. (2015). Pank women – a new form of motherhood? In: VII International Congress of Research and Professional Practice in Psychology XXII Research Sessions XI Meeting of Researchers in Psychology of MERCOSUR (pp. 122–125). Buenos Aires: University of Buenos Aires. (In Span.).

14. Gustafsson Sendén, M., Klysing, A., Lindqvist, A. et al. (2019). The (not so) changing man: Dynamic gender stereotypes in Sweden. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00037

15. Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011

16. Ismail, M., Rasdi, R. M., Wahiza, N. (2005). High‐flyer women academicians: factors contributing to success. Women in Management Review, 20(2), 117–132. http://doi.org/10.1108/09649420510584454

17. Kamas, L., Preston, A. (2012). The importance of being confident; gender, career choice, and willingness to compete. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 82–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.013

18. Lincoln, A. E. (2010). The shifting supply of men and women to occupations: feminization in veterinary education. Social forces, 88(5), 1969–1998. http://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2010.0043

19. Mitchell, K. M., Martin, J. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. Political Science and Politics, 51(3), 648–652. http://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651800001X

20. Murphy, J. C. (2020). Best Practices for Growing the STEM Pipeline for Women: Moving From Collegiate Excellence to Industry Success. In: Developing an Intercultural Responsive Leadership Style for Faculty and Administrators (pp. 182–201). Hershey: IGI Global. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4108-1.ch012

21. Powell, A., Dainty, A., Bagilhole, B. (2012). Gender stereotypes among women engineering and technology students in the UK: lessons from career choice narratives. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(6), 541–556. http://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.724052

22. Quimby, J. L., De Santis, A. M. (2006). The influence of role models on women's career choices. The Career Development Quarterly, 54(4), 297–306. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00195.x

23. Renström, E. A., Gustafsson Sendén, M., Lindqvist, A. (2021). Gender stereotypes in student evaluations of teaching. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.571287

24. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E. et al. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008

25. Selva Olid, C. (2013). Models of Professional Career of the Managerial Woman. Universitas Psychologica, 12(4), 1237–1254. http://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY12-4.mopc (In Span.).

26. Stephens, N. M., Levine, C. S. (2011). Opting out or denying discrimination? How the framework of free choice in American society influences perceptions of gender inequality. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1231–1236. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417260

27. Thébaud, S. (2010). Gender and entrepreneurship as a career choice: do self-assessments of ability matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 288–304. http://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510377882

28. Tower, L. E., Alkadry, M. G. (2008). The social costs of career success for women. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(2), 144–165. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X08315343

29. Wood, W., Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology, 46, 55–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7

30. Yu, H. P., Jen, E. (2021). The gender role and career self-efficacy of gifted girls in STEM areas. High Ability Studies, 32(1), 71–87. http://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1705767