Content uploaded by Deborah O’Neil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Deborah O’Neil on Jul 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the
21st Century: Patterns and Paradoxes
Deborah A. OÕNeil
Margaret M. Hopkins
Diana Bilimoria
ABSTRACT. In this article we assess the extant liter-
ature on womenÕs careers appearing in selected career,
management and psychology journals from 1990 to the
present to determine what is currently known about
the state of womenÕs careers at the dawn of the 21st
century. Based on this review, we identify four patterns
that cumulatively contribute to the current state of the
literature on womenÕs careers: womenÕs careers are
embedded in womenÕs larger-life contexts, families and
careers are central to womenÕs lives, womenÕs career
paths reflect a wide range and variety of patterns, and
human and social capital are critical factors for womenÕs
careers. We also identify paradoxes that highlight the
disconnection between organizational practice and
scholarly research associated with each of the identified
patterns. Our overall conclusion is that male-defined
constructions of work and career success continue to
dominate organizational research and practice.We pro-
vide direction for a research agenda on womenÕs careers
that addresses the development of integrative career
theories relevant for womenÕs contemporary lives in
hopes of providing fresh avenues for conceptualizing
career success for women. Propositions are identified
for more strongly connecting career scholarship to
organizational practice in support of womenÕs contin-
ued career advancement.
KEY WORDS: womenÕs career development, career
success, gender, career theories
Introduction
Transformation in the nature of work and organiz-
ing, the surge of women into the workforce in the
later decades of the 20th century, and recent changes
in the ways careers and career development are
conceptualized – for example, boundaryless (Arthur,
1994), protean (Hall, 1996) and kaleidoscope
(Mainiero and Sullivan, 2005) – suggest the need for
new theory to take into account the expanded
occupational opportunities and resultant choices
now faced by women, and to explicitly address the
lives, experiences, and issues of women in the
workforce.
While the ranks of women in organizations have
grown exponentially over the last decade, organi-
zations are still fundamentally male-dominated. This
trend continues even given the preponderance of
research and anecdotal evidence suggesting that the
most successful organizations will be the ones that
continue to develop the talents and encourage the
contributions of their female employees (Hewlett
and Luce, 2005; Schwartz, 1992).
Much of the existing literature suggests that
womenÕs careers progress differently than menÕsin
large part as a result of the developmental differences
between women and men (Bateson, 1990; Gallos,
1989), as well as organizational and societal factors
(Betz, 1993; Betz and Fitzgerald, 1987; Fagenson-
Eland and Baugh, 2000; Ragins et al., 1998). There is
some debate about the necessity of gender-distinct
career theories (Osipow and Fitzgerald, 1996). Some
authors offer specific rationales for separate study
(Gallos, 1989; Larwood and Gutek, 1987; OÕNeil and
Bilimoria, 2005) and others suggest that while wo-
menÕs career development may not differ fundamen-
tally from menÕs it is considerably more complicated
due to barriers imposed by gendered social contexts
(Betz and Fitzgerald, 1987; Fitzgerald and Crites,
1980), requiring a women-specific research focus.
We address progress in the study of womenÕs
careers subsequent to these calls by undertaking a
review of what is known and what is still left to be
known about this important topic. The purpose of
this review is to examine the current state of the
Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 80:727–743 Springer 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9465-6
literature on women and careers at the start of the
new century. Building on conceptualizations of
womenÕs careers from research done in prior dec-
ades, we focus our attention on development and
empirical research conducted in the approximately
16-year period around the turn of the century, from
1990 to the present, a time of substantial global
economic advancement.
Our review offers three contributions: the iden-
tification of patterns that cumulatively contribute to
our current understanding of womenÕs careers and
associated paradoxes emerging from these patterns;
overall conclusions drawn from these patterns and
paradoxes about the current state of the research and
practice of womenÕs careers; and directions for future
empirical work on womenÕs careers, addressing the
conceptual and methodological needs of career
theories that specifically attend to womenÕs con-
temporary lives.
The investigation parameters
Our aim was to conduct an illustrative, not
exhaustive, review of recent research and theory to
discern patterns and frameworks that can contribute
to our current understanding of womenÕs career
experiences. Academic research relevant to womenÕs
careers is scattered across a variety of fields and
publication outlets, including business/management,
psychology, counseling and vocational behavior,
organizational psychology, industrial relations, soci-
ology, and gender studies. This diffuse and some-
what fragmented literature dilutes and disperses
cumulative knowledge, giving rise to a plethora of
interrelated constructs or ‘‘bundles of influencing
factors’’ (Pringle and Dixon, 2003, p. 294) and
inhibiting their coherent integration within an
overarching theoretical framework (Hackett, 1997).
During our search for research on womenÕs career
development, we came across studies investigating
related elements such as mentoring, networking,
power, sexual harassment, the glass ceiling and
sex-based discrimination, career advancement, cor-
porate mobility, opportunity structures, personal
development, relational development, work–life
balance, career interruptions, womenÕs leadership,
organizational turnover, and human resources
policies. While these constructs inform us about
how womenÕs careers develop, the boundaries be-
tween these related fields impacting womenÕs lives
and careers remain somewhat blurred, contributing
to a disjointed and less than coherent field of
knowledge.
We chose to examine research on womenÕs
careers appearing from 1990 to the present in
academic journals in three primary areas – careers,
management, and applied psychology. (See Table 1
for a list of journals.) We selected samples from
journals in these fields, because in addition to career
related publications, careers research is primarily
found in the management and applied psychology
literature. We would expect that by sampling from
these three main literature streams we could assess
much of the current state of the research on
womenÕs careers. We started by examining the ref-
erence lists of a sample of key articles and book
chapters on career development and womenÕs
careers published since 1990 (e.g., Brett and Stroh,
1999; Burke, 2002; Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Kirch-
meyer, 2002; Mainiero and Sullivan, 2005; Powell
and Mainiero, 1992; Sullivan, 1999) to determine
which journals were most often cited as publishing
work on womenÕs careers. Our search yielded 15
primary journals which we examined for articles
relating to womenÕs career experiences. Our final
sample consisted of 76 articles, pertinent to womenÕs
careers, from these 15 journals in the approximately
16-year period studied. From this literature sample,
common themes were subsequently extracted and
iteratively developed to identify the patterns and
paradoxes of what is known and what is inconsistent.
These patterns and paradoxes are presented in the
following section. An overarching theme identified
from the literature sample opens the discussion sec-
tion where we draw overall conclusions about the
current state of the literature. Additional works from
books, edited volumes, and journals outside the
parameters of our investigation described above are
referenced in the introduction and in support of our
conclusions in the discussion and future research
sections.
Patterns and paradoxes in the literature
From our review of the existing research from 1990
to the present published in the 15 journals identified
728 Deborah A. OÕNeil et al.
in Table 1, we identify four interrelated patterns that
we believe characterize the current state of research
on womenÕs careers. Associated with each pattern
we have identified a paradox, or disconnection,
between the research literature and organizational
practice. These paradoxes highlight seeming dispar-
ities between the research on women and careers
and the reality of women enacting their careers in
contemporary organizations. In essence, the patterns
below identify what is definitively known, through
systematic research, about womenÕs careers at the
start of the 21st century; the paradoxes represent
inconsistencies, questions or nuances regarding this
knowledge that are evident in organizational prac-
tice.
Pattern 1: womenÕs careers comprise more than ÔworkÕ;
they are embedded in womenÕs larger life contexts
Recent research has indicated that for contemporary
women, careers and lives appear to be inextricably
entwined; work and private life are interconnected
(Jacobson and Aaltio-Marjosola, 2001). For example,
Powell and Mainiero (1992) describe the complex
and interwoven choices and constraints in womenÕs
career and life development, including issues of
balance, connectedness, and interdependence in
addition to issues of achievement and individuation.
Their conceptualization of Ôcross currents in a river
of timeÕprovided a framework for looking at
womenÕs careers that takes into account non-work
issues, subjective measures of success, and the impact
of personal, organizational and societal factors on
womenÕs choices.
OÕNeil and Bilimoria (2005) found that womenÕs
career and life responsibilities ebb and flow accord-
ing to life stage concerns and that these must be
factored into organizational models of successful
careers in addition to work-related concerns. The
authors proposed that womenÕs careers fall into three
age related phases, idealistic achievement, pragmatic
endurance, and reinventive contribution. They
found that while the salient issues in each phase
differed, women in all three-career phases were
concerned with succeeding in both their careers and
their relationships.
Mainiero and Sullivan (2005) found that in
comparison to men, womenÕs career histories were
relational. They noted that for the women in their
studies, ‘‘career decisions were normally part of a
larger and intricate web of interconnected issues,
people and aspects that had to come together in a
delicately balanced package’’ (p. 111). The authors
proposed a kaleidoscope career as one in which
women evaluate their career choices holistically in
the context of their relationships, constraints and
opportunities, searching for the best fit. They
proposed an ‘‘ABC’’ model of careers (p. 113) and
suggest that authenticity, balance and challenge will
alternate in importance over time depending on
womenÕs career and life circumstances. They posit
TABLE 1
List of journals and number of articles in each
Careers (14) Management (54) Applied Psychology (8)
Career Development International (4) Academy of Management Executive/
Perspective (5)
Journal of Applied Psychology (4)
Journal of Vocational Behavior (10) Academy of Management Journal (6) Journal of Counseling Psychology (3)
Academy of Management Review (2) The Counseling Psychologist (1)
Administrative Science Quarterly (2)
British Journal of Management (3)
Harvard Business Review (4)
Journal of Business Ethics (4)
Journal of Management (5)
Journal of Management Inquiry (4)
Women in Management Review (19)
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the 21st Century 729
that issues of authenticity and being true to oneself
will be paramount in late career, balance between
career and relational concerns will more likely
manifest in mid career and engaging in challenging
work will be the primary focus of women in early
career phases.
Similar to the above referenced studies, relational
orientation, juggling multiple roles, and family
concerns were found to be highly relevant factors in
the career development of high-achieving African
American and Caucasian women (Richie et al.,
1997), providing additional support for the conten-
tion that womenÕs career choices are about more
than just paid work.
Paradox 1: organizational realities demand the separation
of career and life
Our review suggests that for womenÕs career
development contextual factors need to be taken
into consideration, that work-related success and
satisfaction are closely linked with life issues for
contemporary women, and that women desire to
succeed both professionally and personally. How-
ever, organizational realities faced by contemporary
managerial and professional women appear not to
have caught up with their career preferences and life
choices. These organizational realities, continuing
largely from an earlier era when male workers were
the norm, demand the separation of careers and life.
Work and organizations continue to be structured
around the traditional 1950Õs family (Schneer and
Reitman, 2002), the ‘‘male norm of complete
availability’’ (Burke, 1999, p. 162), and the corpo-
rate-convenient framework of managerial work
(Schein, 1993, 2007) that supports the breadwinner
model – men delegating family responsibilities to
spouses (Drew and Murtagh, 2005).
In a study of extremely successful women in the
United Kingdom, White (1995) found that a
majority of the women in her sample of 48 displayed
high-career centrality, worked continuously and
either accommodated their family responsibilities
to their work lives or remained childless in order to
succeed in their organizations. Her overall conclu-
sion was that the stereotype of the successful career
as continuous full-time career engagement appeared
to be alive and well and that it posed a detriment to
women trying to meaningfully engage in their dual
roles of career and family responsibilities.
The notion of putting work first does not ade-
quately reflect the broader scope of contemporary
womenÕs responsibilities (Mavin, 2001; McDonald
et al., 2005; Pringle and Dixon, 2003), yet clearly
this expectation still lingers in the organizational
practice of their careers. Thus, while the concept of
womenÕs careers inhabiting a larger life space has
been identified by recent research findings on con-
temporary womenÕs careers, ongoing practice in
organizations pertinent to how careers are concep-
tualized and developed, and how women engaging
in these careers are evaluated and rewarded, para-
doxically still appears to be based on the traditional
(male) model of continuous employment and single-
minded dedication to work, continuing to disad-
vantage contemporary women in organizations.
Pattern 2: families and careers are central to womenÕs lives
Given the implications of the first pattern identified
above, it is important to examine the impact of
family responsibilities on womenÕs careers. There is a
vast body of literature on work–family conflict and
work–life balance. In our review we noted that the
literature primarily falls into two streams: identifying
the antecedents and consequences of work–family
conflict and/or work–family enrichment; and the
creation and utilization of, and attitude toward
work–life balance policies in organizations.
Studies have investigated the influence of family
structure on career advancement and success (Kir-
chmeyer, 2002; Schneer and Reitman, 2002; Stroh
et al., 1996) with mixed results. There is support for
women personally benefiting from multiple roles
(Ruderman et al., 2002), but more evidence to
suggest that womenÕs multiple roles are not rewarded
organizationally (Brett and Stroh, 1999; Burke,
1999; Kirchmeyer, 2002). Recent research on
work–family conflict (Netemeyer et al., 1996;
Osterman, 1995) and work–family culture
(Thompson et al., 1999) has linked the tension
inherent in occupying multiple roles as well as
organizational support for work–family integration
to employeeÕs job commitment and satisfaction. In a
study of engagement in work and family roles,
Rothbard (2001) found that both men and women
730 Deborah A. OÕNeil et al.
experienced enrichment between roles but in
opposite directions; men from work to family and
women from family to work. Only women expe-
rienced depletion between roles and it was in the
direction of work to family.
In an investigation of dual-employed couples,
Tenbrusel et al. (1995) found that womenÕs work–
family relationships were unidirectional and static,
with family taking precedence, while menÕs were
reciprocal and dynamic. WomenÕs career satisfac-
tion has been found to be adversely affected by
work–family conflict (Martins et al., 2002) sug-
gesting that any examination of women and work
must take into account a womanÕs family context
and the interaction effects of work and life
variables.
In a controversial study, Hewlett (2002) sug-
gested that many high-achieving women have sac-
rificed their ability to have children in order to
meet the demands required of them to advance in
their careers. She proposed that the career
advancement clock and the maternity clock are out
of sync, resulting in many high-achieving women
focusing on their careers and postponing their
families until it is often too late to conceive. Either
way, women are forced to choose between having a
family and having a successful career. There are
women who combine both, but often feel they are
not giving their all to either. There is also evidence
to suggest generational differences in the belief that
it is possible to ‘‘have it all.’’ Younger women are
more likely to believe it is possible (Hewlett, 2002;
OÕNeil and Bilimoria, 2005) while older women
who once felt the same, have revised their images
of what ‘‘having it all’’ looks like (Winsor and
Ensher, 2002) and many women at mid-life have
‘‘rebalanced’’ their lives to focus more on family,
personal interests and relationships (Gordon et al.,
2002, p. 333).
The focus of the majority of work–family conflict
research is on the role of parenting. However,
Hamilton et al. (2006) found that women without
children experienced work–life conflict as well,
more in the direction of work to life than life to
work. They proposed two possible explanations: that
organizations frequently count on non-parents to
take on extra duties when needed; and that women
without children are likely to be more consumed by
their work.
Paradox 2: families continue to be liabilities to womenÕs
career development in organizations
The literature is replete with recommendations for the
creation of organizational work–life benefits to assist
employees in managing their multiple responsibilities.
Parenting leaves, reduced hours, flexible work hours,
alternative career paths, job-sharing and telecom-
muting are just some of the organizational policies that
exist. There seems to be general agreement that pro-
viding flexible work arrangements and requiring less
organizational face time would be beneficial for
womenÕs work–life integration.
However, there is also debate as to the utilization
and efficacy of corporate work–life policies, and
their consequences on career advancement (Burke,
1997, 1999; Schwartz, 1992; Tomlinson, 2004).
Taking advantage of these policies is seen to be
generally incompatible with ascending the ranks to
senior management positions (Drew and Murtagh,
2005). One study found that in organizations that
promoted a work–family culture, work–family
benefits were more often utilized than in organiza-
tions without work–family cultures (Thompson
et al., 1999). In particular, the perception of mana-
gerial support for taking advantage of work–family
benefits was a significant factor in their usage. This
suggests that even if an organization has work–family
benefits, which many claim, without the direct
support and encouragement of oneÕs manager and
the perception of a family-friendly organizational
culture, these benefits will likely not be used without
penalty (Schwartz, 1996). Since women are the
majority of employees that utilize these so-called
family-friendly benefits, their career advancement
may be paradoxically disadvantaged; families may
indeed be liabilities to womenÕs careers in organi-
zations (c.f., Burke, 1999).
Pattern 3: womenÕs career paths reflect a wide range
and variety of patterns
Our review of the empirical literature revealed that
the architecture of womenÕs careers is constructed
uniquely and differently from menÕs. WomenÕs
careers are more likely to reflect a range of paths and
patterns than menÕs careers. While the traditional
notion of a career as a hierarchical progression up an
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the 21st Century 731
organizational ladder is still represented in the liter-
ature on womenÕs careers (e.g., Lyness and
Thompson, 2000), there is also emerging evidence
suggesting more snake-like careers for women versus
ladder-like careers for men (Richardson, 1996) and
womenÕs career paths characterized as ‘‘zigzags’’
(Gersick and Kram, 2002, p. 31). Lepine (1992)
found a variety of career patterns for women man-
agers with almost half of the women in her research
sample employed in traditional upwardly mobile
careers and the other half in patterns characterized as
downward, lateral, transitory or static. Similarly, in a
study of womenÕs career patterns, Huang and Sverke
(2007) found that womenÕs occupational paths were
diverse, represented by patterns of upward mobility,
stability, downward mobility, and fluctuation.
Hurley and Sonnenfeld (1997) found that the
ÔtournamentÕmodel of careers as a series of wins and
losses in a race to the top did not apply to women to
the same degree as men. The authors suggested that
women in organizations may end up being placed in
fundamentally different tournaments than men.
In a study of womenÕs career choices, OÕNeil et al.
(2004) found that specific combinations of career
patterns, characterized as a continuum between
ordered (planned, organized) and emergent (seren-
dipitous, circuitous), and career locus, characterized as
a continuum between internal and external, resulted
in three career types for women: Achieving, Navi-
gating and Accommodating. Women with emergent
career types (Accommodating careers) were poised
midway between internal and external career loci
reflecting the dual reality of self and other consider-
ations in their career decisions.
Research has explored the impact of the
dominant organizational culture on womenÕs
experiences of career advancement and satisfaction
(Rosin and Korabik, 1995). Examining the
concept of a career-ambitious person, OÕLeary
(1997) showed how career success or failure varies
according to the traditional male ‘‘corpocratic’’
career model based on linear, hierarchical pro-
gression likened to tournaments or competitions
with winners and losers, or a newer female
‘‘lifestream’’ career model. The latter model
emerged from a holistic framework exploring the
interplay between work, relationships, organiza-
tional factors, and various life stages; it measures
personal and professional success through perceived
degree of challenge, satisfaction, sense of growth
and development. OÕLeary (1997) suggested that
organizations employing the corpocratic career
model will continue to be disadvantageous to
women who are engaged in both career and
family responsibilities.
Much attention has focused on the advent of
women entrepreneurs who are creating their own
businesses instead of continuing in careers
constricted by organizational structures and policies.
In a study of women entrepreneurs Mattis (2004)
found that the four most cited reasons for women
leaving organizations to establish their own busi-
nesses were a desire for more flexibility, the impact
of corporate glass ceilings and glass walls, dissatis-
faction with the organizational work environment,
and a lack of challenging opportunities in corporate
positions. Due to a generally inhospitable organiza-
tional climate, some women are creating new more
flexible career forms that provide them the oppor-
tunity to engage meaningfully in their professional
and personal lives.
Paradox 3: organizations predominantly organize
for and reward upwardly mobile career paths
Although protean (Hall, 2004), boundaryless (Sullivan
and Arthur, 2006), and kaleidoscope (Mainiero and
Sullivan, 2005) careers have been proposed as the
emerging career patterns of the future, contemporary
organizational career paths paradoxically remain lar-
gely defined by traditional dimensions of length of
service, geographic mobility, and progression up the
organizational ladder (McDonald et al., 2005). The
linear hierarchical path of the traditional career –
symbolized by vertical trajectory, climbing the cor-
porate pyramid, and monetary, power and status re-
wards (Hall and Mirvis, 1995) – continues to prevail.
One might suggest that the emerging career pat-
terns of the future should be more conducive to
womenÕs careers based on the themes of flexibility,
transferability of skills and engaging in psychologi-
cally meaningful work (Sullivan, 1999), however,
little has changed organizationally with women still
not advancing to the most senior levels of organi-
zations, not being challenged in their work, and
continuing to face discrimination (Mainiero and
Sullivan, 2005; Ragins et al., 1998). The tenacious
732 Deborah A. OÕNeil et al.
continuation of the traditional linear organizational
model of advancement and success continues to
disadvantage women whose career paths, patterns
and choices may not fit the conventional structures
of organizational career development still practiced
in contemporary organizations.
Pattern 4: human capital and social capital are critical
factors for womenÕs career development
Human capital is commonly acknowledged as an
important asset for career development. Education,
training, developmental opportunities, job tenure,
experience and mobility in work assignments each
contribute to enhancing human capital. A survey of
Chief Executive Officers found that the CEOs
believed a lack of human capital (i.e., line experi-
ence) was the primary reason why women were not
advancing in organizations (Ragins et al., 1998).
Melamed (1995) hypothesized that menÕs career
success, defined as salary and managerial level, would
be influenced more by job-related human capital
attributes such as mental ability, education and job
experience than womenÕs career success. Her results
indicated that job-relevant human capital explained a
greater amount of variance in managerial level and
salary level for women than for men. To be suc-
cessful, women needed job-relevant human capital:
education for increased salary level, and job experi-
ence to advance in managerial level. While human
capital was critical for womenÕs careers in this study,
human capital factors were not significant for the
successful men. In a large scale, longitudinal study,
Tharenou (2001) found that traits such as career
aspirations and masculinity along with interpersonal
support interacted with gender to predict advance-
ment through the managerial hierarchy above and
beyond what could be explained by human capital
attributes and promotions. She found that the junior
women in her sample unlike the men were hindered
in advancing into lower and middle management
roles by male hierarchies and were helped to advance
to senior management levels by career supports and
encouragement.
The question as to how managerial men and
women compare in their human capital attributes
presupposes that there already exists a level playing
field where men and women are judged equally in
the workplace. Often the benefit of oneÕs human
capital depends in part on oneÕs social capital or
standing in social networks. Networks can take the
form of formal arrangements or informal associations
and provide critical advice and resources for career
development (Ibarra, 1993).
Recent research has shown that social capital is
critically important to womenÕs careers while a
dearth of social capital presents substantial barriers.
Although men referenced their track record as a
chief contributor to their career success, women
mentioned help from above as the most critical
success factor (Morrison et al., 1992). Women are
proficient at building informal stronger networks
particularly with other women (Ibarra, 1993), and
they tend to establish network relationships for social
support (Singh et al., 2006). Singh et al. (2006)
framed the reasons for womenÕs network behavior as
similar to behaviors integral to organizational citi-
zenship, i.e., helping and sportsmanship.
The inaccessibility of informal networks has been
cited as a primary reason for the lack of career
advancement by women (Ragins et al., 1998). Ibarra
(1993) reported that men and women in equivalent
organizational positions may require different
approaches to networks in order to achieve their ca-
reer objectives. She found that overall women have a
smaller percentage of same-sex network ties than their
male counterparts. The fundamental reason for these
varied approaches is that men and women are seen as
operating in different social circles. The segregated
nature of organizational networks leaves women out
of important connections and conversations.
Paradox 4: womenÕs human and social capital
augmentation has not defeated the glass ceiling
Despite demonstrating significant human and social
capital accumulation, paradoxically the glass ceiling
continues to prevail and few women ascend to the
highest rungs of the corporate hierarchy. Although
women comprise 46% of all U.S. workers (http://
www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm), hold 50% of all
professional positions, graduate with 57% of bache-
lorÕs degrees and 58.5% of all masterÕs degrees, and
constitute approximately 30% of all MBA students
(http://www.catalystwomen.org/files/tid/tidbits04.
pdf) – an examination of the end of the managerial
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the 21st Century 733
pipeline shows that very few women are actually
moving up to top-level management positions
(Ragins et al., 1998). In fact, close to 50% of For-
tune 1000 firms currently have no women at the
executive level (Helfat et al., 2006). Women
themselves describe their jobs as offering a larger
number of social contacts yet are less satisfied with
the promotion opportunities afforded to them as
compared to men (Lefkowitz, 1994), and report that
they do not have access to the visible work experi-
ences that provide career development opportunities
(Lyness and Thompson, 1997).
Creating a connected network of relationships,
sharing responsibility and contributing to the
development of others are examples of exemplary
managerial behaviors in the current popular man-
agement literature (Fondas, 1997). These admirable
management practices reflect stereotypically femi-
nine behaviors, yet, these best practices are not
publicly acknowledged as feminine. Nor are these
effective organizational citizenship behaviors likely
to be rewarded when they are undertaken by wo-
men employees according to Fletcher (1998). She
described the relational practice of women in orga-
nizations intended to enhance the professional
achievements of the collective and not just the
individual. Relational practice creates a team atmo-
sphere supporting the mutual empowerment and
effectiveness of everyone. While relational practice
makes the necessary people connections in support
of the organizationÕs goals, Fletcher suggests that this
practice Ôgets disappearedÕor is viewed as inappro-
priate in the organization for a variety of structural
and behavioral reasons. Thus, the paradoxical reality
faced by many women remains that their actions to
strengthen the organizationÕs social infrastructure
(e.g., collaboration, affiliation, empowerment,
teamwork, and conflict resolution) while effective
and value adding in practice, do not result in
appropriate rewards and recognition, thereby con-
tributing additionally to their constrained career
advancement.
Discussion
Our review of the literature and the patterns and
paradoxes identified above lead to an overall conclu-
sion that male-defined constructions of work and
career success continue to dominate organizational
research and practice. Theory building and testing of
womenÕs career development continues to draw
heavily on frameworks and conceptions derived from
male constructions of work and careers. Despite,
appearing on the surface to have corrected the pre-
vious over-reliance on theories and models primarily
derived from menÕs careers, most large-sample,
hypotheses-testing investigations of womenÕs career
stages and patterns continue to subtly perpetuate a
male-defined framing of work and careers. For
example, an over-reliance on measures such as income
to determine womenÕs career success offers an
incomplete picture. WomenÕs own definitions of
success may have less to do with externally defined,
traditionally male, corporate criteria and may be more
likely to rely on internal criteria such as a sense
of personal achievement, integrity, balance, etc.
(Melamed, 1995; Sturges, 1999). KirchmeyerÕs (1998,
2002) investigations, for instance, found that although
women earned lower incomes than men, they per-
ceived their careers to be as successful. In a study of
mid-career female and male MBA graduates, Schneer
and Reitman (1995) found that females made less
money, worked fewer hours and were at lower
managerial levels than males, but reported themselves
just as satisfied with their careers. Although some
recent studies have begun to employ respondentsÕ
own personal definitions of success (e.g., Kirchmeyer,
1998, 2002; OÕNeil and Bilimoria, 2005; Poole et al.,
1991; Sturges, 1999), the bulk of empirical studies
continue to rely predominantly on traditional (male)
career outcomes and externalized definitions of suc-
cess, such as income, wealth accumulation, and
position within the corporate hierarchy.
The differential ‘‘impact gap’’ of policies and
practices on womenÕs and menÕs careers is also ripe
for investigation. Recent studies (e.g., Kirchmeyer,
1998; Lyness and Thompson, 1997; Smart, 1998;
Stroh et al., 1992; Tharenou, et al., 1994) have
attempted to utilize more gender-free frameworks
and constructs applicable to all managers (e.g.,
geographic transfers for career advancement, access
to organizational opportunities, career encourage-
ment, career interruptions, career involvement, the
link between individual traits and success, etc.).
However, while these constructs pertain to both
genders, women frequently may be disproportion-
ately impacted. For example, in Judiesch and LynessÕ
734 Deborah A. OÕNeil et al.
(1999) study on the impact of leaves of absence on
managersÕcareer success, the authors found that
organizational penalties did not differ by gender;
however, out of their sample of 523 leave takers, 476
were women and 47 were men. Similarly, while
Kirchmeyer (1998) found that career interruptions
for both male and female mid-career managers
negatively impacted success women experienced
significantly more career interruptions than men
mainly due to family responsibilities. Thus, there
would appear to be a disproportionately larger
negative impact of career interruptions on women.
In another study, while womenÕs and menÕs base
salary and bonus were not found to be different,
women executives received fewer stock options and
had less authority than their matched male coun-
terparts, leading the authors to conclude that female
executives may be less valued than male executives
in the organization studied (Lyness and Thompson,
1997). While the lack of differences in the com-
pensation (salary and bonus) variables studied sug-
gests gender parity in the organizational reward
structure, a deeper understanding of the organiza-
tional treatment of women and men arises from
unpacking other organizational variables.
Although the reliance on constructs such as in-
come, career interruptions, and career advancement
might provide insight about overall patterns and
trends in male and female corporate careers, their
differential application to and impact on men and
women suggest caution in their use and interpreta-
tion.
Our review also indicates that the samples studied
consist mostly of highly successful women managers,
executives, and professionals, drawn predominantly
from white, middle class, and highly educated
backgrounds. Samples draw heavily on either cor-
porate executives and managers or MBA alumni and
students. This treatment of womenÕs careers, limited
to a select sample of elite or successful women, is of
concern because this sampling represents only a small
proportion of the population of working women
and generalizations from this group may not be
relevant for the majority of womenÕs careers. Addi-
tionally, the sample selection criteria for inclusion of
women in research studies are themselves based on
career success definitions emanating from male
models and male standards; these women are highly
successful in their chosen careers based on objective,
traditionally male standards of career success such as
advanced organizational level and high income (e.g.,
Gersick and Kram, 2002; Mainiero, 1994; Ragins
et al., 1998; Richie et al., 1997).
Many studies use organizational advancement as if
it were a synonym for career development, which
may not accurately reflect the way women currently
conceptualize or construct their careers. For
instance, successful women who leave corporate
careers to establish their own businesses, do indi-
vidual consulting, pursue new credentials, change
their career field, or rebalance their professional and
personal lives do not fit extant criteria for career
progression. Studies that continue to tie career
development to hierarchical advancement thus
exclude an entire segment of non-linear career
development experiences and criteria relevant to an
overarching framework of womenÕs contemporary
careers. This pattern is of some concern given the
recent trend of women leaving corporate life
(Marshall, 1995; Moore, 2000; Moore and Buttner,
1997), including many women who meet traditional
standards of corporate success.
Biases inherent in the organizational model of
success are apparent when we examine the gendered
language surrounding womenÕs career choices.
Notions that women are ‘‘opting out,’’ (Belkin,
2003), taking career ‘‘off-ramps’’ (Hewlett and Luce,
2005), and lacking in ambition (Fels, 2004) all reflect
a corporate or organizational framework as the only
legitimate path to success. Women may find
challenge and satisfaction in entrepreneurial and
alternative paths, but they are still deemed unsuc-
cessful if they leave organizational life.
From our review, there appears to be wide-
spread agreement that womenÕs careers are com-
plex and multi-dimensional, yet work practices
appear to exist in a single dimension – the male-
defined organizational dimension. Why then,
given the preponderance of evidence that suggests
women need organizational structures that support
them in managing multiple life roles, does the
traditional, hierarchical organizational model con-
tinue to exist? We believe there are three primary
reasons.
First, the traditional organization model works for
the people employed in the top leadership ranks of
organizations. It supports the status-quo which
maintains the power balance in the hands of the
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the 21st Century 735
powerful, the preponderance of whom are men (c.f.,
Braynion, 2004; Hearn and Parkin, 1986; Oakley,
2000; Ridgeway, 2001). As stated earlier, women
are still significantly underrepresented at the top
levels of organizations (Simpson, 2000). Since
employees demonstrating single-minded devotion to
their careers benefit organizations and those at the
top, there is no compelling reason for change.
Second, data is not systematically collected and
reviewed for issues of role complexity and multiple
responsibilities in organizations, particularly at lower
or middle management levels where many women
may be faced with choices about work–life balance.
Data suggests that even in organizations that do offer
employees work accommodations there are real or
perceived career penalties to utilizing them (Sch-
wartz, 1996).
Third, while organizational structures and sys-
tems may change, organizational cultures and
individual attitudes and perceptions do not keep
pace. While there are many more women in
organizations and in management roles now than
there used to be, underlying assumptions and
perceptions about women and careers and women
in leadership have not evolved to the same degree.
As Schein (2007) continues to document, a ‘‘think
manager-think male’’ attitude stubbornly persists
among men. Indeed, Rindfleish and Sheridan
(2003) found that even women in senior leader-
ship roles often do not use their positions to sys-
tematically challenge gendered organizational
structures.
Our review highlights another fundamental con-
clusion about the current state of research on
womenÕs career experiences: womenÕs career
development and outcomes in organizations con-
tinue to be challenging. Although women have
increasingly moved into the workforce and into
middle management positions, they have yet to
make real in-roads at the top of organizational
hierarchies. KanterÕs (1977) concept of tokenism
identified decades ago continues to plague women in
organizations. Burke and McKeen (1996) found that
women managers employed in organizations with a
high proportion of men at all levels, and predomi-
nantly men at senior levels, expressed less job satis-
faction and greater intentions to quit than did
women employed in more gender-equal organiza-
tions. Token women in organizations are more
likely to experience barriers to career advancement
and to perceive a lack of organizational fit (Simpson,
1997, 2000).
Ragins et al. (1998) found stark differences in
perceptions between CEOs and women executives
regarding womenÕs advancement into senior posi-
tions in American Fortune 1000 organizations.
CEOs overwhelmingly identified a lack of general
management experience and a lack of women in the
managerial pipeline as the major barriers to womenÕs
advancement. In contrast, female executives pointed
to issues of organizational culture such as stereo-
typing and exclusion from important networks. Such
disparate perspectives continue to work against the
advancement of women into senior leadership
positions. Even women who do advance to senior
management positions reported lower levels of
compensation, mobility and authority in comparison
to men in similar positions (Lyness and Thompson,
1997). Adding to womenÕs precarious position at the
top of the organizational hierarchy is the notion of
the ‘‘glass cliff’’ (Ryan and Haslam, 2005) which
proposes that women who do ascend to organiza-
tional leadership roles are likely to do so in less than
favorable circumstances.
The effects of the ‘‘glass ceiling’’ (Morrison et al.,
1992) continue to disadvantage women who desire
organizational advancement, thus resulting in a gen-
eral pattern of few women in top corporate positions.
The gendered nature of organizational structures
ensures that women have limited access to positions of
power in the organizational hierarchy. Stereotypically
masculine traits are still equated more with good
management practices than are stereotypically femi-
nine traits (Powell et al., 2002). ScheinÕs (2007)
findings that male attitudes have not changed
regarding perceptions of men being more suitable for
management roles than women since her original
research was conducted 30 years ago is particularly
disturbing. If after decades of women working, the
predominant attitude among men is still Ôthink man-
ager, think maleÕ(Schein, 1993, 2007), how can we
expect women to progress to the highest levels of
organizations and affect changes in organizational
structures and cultures for the women entering the
workforce behind them? Scholarship focused on the
transformation of organizational realities for women
can hopefully provide fruitful direction for the
advancement of womenÕs careers.
736 Deborah A. OÕNeil et al.
Future research directions
Based on our review of the research conducted in
the previous 16 years, we encourage further inves-
tigation in three primary areas relevant to womenÕs
careers: the intersection of womenÕs careers and
lives; definitions of career success for women; and
the intersection of organizational practice and indi-
vidual career development.
First, we support continued work in employing
holistic approaches to womenÕs career-in-life
development (OÕNeil, 2003). As Fagenson (1990)
suggests for the study of women in management,
what is required is an integrated gender-organiza-
tion-system approach that takes into account the
interactional dynamics of individual, organizational
and societal factors. This is well-advised for the study
of women and careers as well given consistent
findings about the importance of context and rela-
tionships to womenÕs career choices. More integra-
tive theoretical development needs to occur in the
examination of contextual variables. Additionally,
the relationship between womenÕs personal and
professional lives (e.g., Ruderman et al., 2002) needs
to be further explored in ways that deepen our
understanding of the complex synergies created by
the flows of knowledge, skills, and experience
among a womanÕs multiple life roles as a dynamic
system.
Second, future research should expand existing
definitions of career success for women. Career
theorists must question the validity and generaliz-
ability of extant male-defined constructions of suc-
cess, investigate why women are abandoning the
pursuit of ‘‘success’’ in corporate careers (Belkin,
2003; Hewlett and Luce, 2005), and re-examine the
very meaning of career success in light of womenÕs
contemporary lives and choices. Future research
needs to explore broadened conceptualizations of
contemporary work and careers for women, utilizing
women-specific framings of these constructs that
include not just what one does for work but who
one is while doing it. Future studies should focus on
giving voice to womenÕs own career and life expe-
riences with the intent of building integrated theory
about these experiences (Mainiero and Sullivan,
2005; OÕNeil and Bilimoria, 2005). Most impor-
tantly, sample selection considerations for future
research investigations should take these expanded,
women-specific definitions of success in careers into
account; objective, traditional measures of corporate
career success need not be the only criteria for
inclusion in studies of womenÕs career development.
Third, and most critical, as the patterns and par-
adoxes identified earlier highlight, extant knowledge
of contemporary womenÕs careers has not resulted in
significant changes in their current organizational
realities. Research relevant to womenÕs careers is
needed to inform and advance organizational prac-
tice. Several propositions follow suggesting the kind
of research needed at the intersection of individuals
and organizations, such that it impacts structural,
political and cultural changes in organizations as well
as reveals fruitful avenues for women as they create
their careers.
Structural changes
As research has consistently shown, organizations
must discard a Ôone size fits allÕmentality toward
career structures and supports (Martins et al., 2002)
and recognize that womenÕs career dynamics fluc-
tuate over the life course (OÕNeil and Bilimoria,
2005). Organizational policies supportive of women
being active contributors at all phases of their lives
are necessary requirements for enabling desired
whole life integration. For instance, early career
women need challenging assignments, mentoring
and good management; women in mid-career may
also need flexible work hours, work arrangements
and job restructuring to assist them in mediating the
critical junctures of the many roles they play.
Women in later career stages have knowledge and
relational skills that can be utilized in mentoring
roles which benefits these women and their orga-
nizations. In addition, organizational practices need
to consistently recognize womenÕs leadership across a
spectrum of behaviors enacting not only collective
accomplishments but also individual achievement.
The recent trend of women into entrepreneurial
enterprises is an important indicator that organiza-
tional forms need to adapt. Organizational intra-
preneurship (Pinchot, 1985), the practice of
entrepreneurial skills within a company, may be
particularly critical for women (Hopkins and OÕNeil,
2007). The literature demonstrates that women seek
challenging developmental opportunities to use their
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the 21st Century 737
talents and skills in creative and innovative ways.
Organizations can support these needs by legiti-
mizing various career paths and options. The ten-
dency of women to create their own organizations
instead of staying with organizations that do not
offer them flexibility and challenge (Mattis, 2004) is
likely to continue if organizational practices do not
change.
We encourage future research to investigate the
impact of different organizational career structures
on relevant career outcomes, as illustrated by the
propositions below.
Proposition (1)
Organizations that offer multiple career
path opportunities will have higher
organizational commitment from women
managers.
Proposition (2)
Organizations that offer opportunities for
women managers to demonstrate intra-
preneurship within their organizations
will have lower turnover.
Proposition (3)
Organizations that identify and make
effective use of womenÕs talents and inter-
ests at different career phases will be seen as
employers of choice over the long term.
Political changes
Access and equity are key political factors impacting
the career development of women. As noted in our
review, help from above was found to be a key
contributor to womenÕs successful organizational
advancement (Morrison et al., 1992) and yet access
to the informal organizational networks where much
of the influence and power in organizational systems
is held is challenging for women (Ibarra, 1993;
Ragins et al., 1998). Research that identifies solu-
tions to this exigent issue and points the way to
access to formal and informal networks, mentors and
sponsors for women in organizations is necessary to
ensure the advancement of women to senior levels.
Equity issues exist in the differential treatment of
men and women in organizations. As our review
shows, women are likely to be paid less (e.g., Sch-
neer and Reitman, 1995), have less opportunity for
challenging, high visibility assignments (e.g., Lyness
and Thompson, 1997), and are more likely to be
disproportionately impacted by organizational poli-
cies and practices (e.g., Judiesch and Lyness, 1999;
Kirchmeyer, 1998). Future research must better
understand these equity issues and provide direction
for establishing more equal organizational playing
fields that do not further disadvantage women.
We direct future research to examine the rela-
tionship between the political issues of equity and
access on the one hand and individual career
development and organizational effectiveness on the
other, as illustrated by the propositions below.
Proposition (4)
Organizations that systematically provide
formal and informal mentoring and net-
working opportunities for women will
have a larger talent pool of women for
senior leadership succession planning.
Proposition (5)
Organizations that conduct systematic
equity assessments of their human
resource policies will discover the hidden
gender impact gap of those policies and
be able to make adjustments in a timely
manner, minimizing the unintended and
unanticipated consequences of those
policies.
Cultural changes
As noted above, womenÕs varying career dynamics
and different career stages require flexibility of
organizational policies and practices to better align
738 Deborah A. OÕNeil et al.
with womenÕs working realities (Gordon and
Whelan, 1998; Still and Timms, 1998). Organiza-
tions providing climates of acceptance and support
for the many responsibilities and choices women
face will likely find increased loyalty and commit-
ment on the part of women to their organizations.
Organizational commitment has been defined as
a strong belief in the organizational goals and values,
a willingness to exert extra effort on behalf of the
organization and a desire to continue membership in
the organization (Porter et al., 1974). Given the
patterns identified in our review that women are
invested in both work and non-work responsibili-
ties, and desirous of success in both careers and
relationships, organizational policies and practices
must support them in attaining success if they are to
be considered organizations of choice for talented
women. Leadership must not only signal their sup-
port for progressive human resource practices, but
also insure that the intended outcomes are achieved.
Thus we encourage investigation of propositions
such as the following:
Proposition (6)
Organizations with senior leaders who
actively support and champion organiza-
tional work–life balance policies will have
women managers who demonstrate
greater commitment, citizenship and
satisfaction.
Proposition (7)
Organizations with managerial support
and role modeling for cultures of inclu-
sion that support employees leading
integrated lives will attract and retain
talented women employees.
Failure to provide necessary and appropriate
resources and encouragement will continue to result
in the devaluing and exodus of talented women from
organizations (Marshall, 1995). Organizations that
create work environments that do not disadvantage
women seeking to lead integrated lives and have
access to challenging opportunities will clearly have a
competitive edge in keeping their most talented
employees. To this end, as the 21st century unfolds,
we encourage relevant future research that guides
and informs progressive organizational practice
regarding womenÕs career development.
References
Arthur, M. B.: 1994, ÔThe Boundaryless Career: A New
Perspective for Organizational InquiryÕ,Journal of
Organizational Behavior 15, 295–306.
Bateson, M. C.: 1990, Composing a Life (Plume Books,
New York).
Belkin, L.: 2003, ÔThe Opt-Out RevolutionÕ,New York
Times Magazine, October 26th, 42.
Betz, N.: 1993, ÔWomenÕs Career DevelopmentÕ,inF.L.
Denmark and M. A. Paludi (eds.), Psychology of Women
(Greenwood Press, Westport, CT), pp. 627–679.
Betz, N. E. and L. F. Fitzgerald: 1987, The Career Psy-
chology of Women (Academic Press, NY).
Braynion, P.: 2004, ÔPower and LeadershipÕ,Journal of
Health, Organization, and Management 18(6), 447–463.
Brett, J. M. and L. K. Stroh: 1999, ÔWomen in Man-
agement: How Far Have We Come and What Needs
to be Done as We Approach (2000)?Õ,Journal of
Management Inquiry 8(4), 392–398.
Burke, R. J.: 1997, ÔAre Families Damaging to Careers?Õ,
Women in Management Review 13(8), 320–324.
Burke, R. J.: 1999, ÔAre Families a Career Liability?Õ,
Women in Management Review 14(5), 159–163.
Burke, R. J.: 2002, ÔCareer Development of Managerial
WomenÕ, in R. J. Burke and D. L. Nelson (eds.),
Advancing WomenÕs Careers (Blackwell Publishing,
Malden, MA), pp. 139–160.
Burke, R. J. and C. A. McKeen: 1996, ÔDo Women at
the Top Make a Difference? Gender Proportions
and the Experiences of Managerial and Professional
WomenÕ,Human Relations 49(8), 1093–1098.
Catalyst: 2007, ÔFacts About Working WomenÕ, http://
www.catalystwomen.org/files/tid/tidbits04.pdf,
retrieved 4/25/07.
Drew, E. and E. M. Murtagh: 2005, ÔWork/Life Balance:
Senior Management Champions or Laggards?Õ,Women
in Management Review 20(4), 262–278.
Fagenson, E.: 1990, ÔAt the Heart of Women in Man-
agement Research: Theoretical and Methodological
Approaches and Their BiasesÕ,Journal of Business Ethics
9, 267–274.
Fagenson-Eland, E. and G. Baugh: 2000, ÔCareer Paths,
Networking, and MentoringÕ, in D. Smith (ed.),
Women at Work – Leadership for the Next Century
(Prentice Hall, New Jersey), pp. 145–161.
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the 21st Century 739
Fels, A.: 2004, Do Women Lack Ambition? (Harvard
Business Review, Harvard Business School Publishing
Corporation, Boston, MA).
Fitzgerald, L. F. and J. O. Crites: 1980, ÔToward a Career
Psychology of Women: What do We Know? What do
We Need to Know?Õ,Journal of Counseling Psychology
27(1), 44–62.
Fitzgerald, L. F., R. E. Fassinger and N. E. Betz: 1995,
ÔTheoretical Advances in the Study of WomenÕs Career
DevelopmentÕ, in W. B. Walsh and S. H. Osipow (eds.),
Handbook of Vocational Psychology 2nd Edition (Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah, NJ), pp. 67–110.
Fletcher, J. K.: 1998, ÔRelational PracticeÕ,Journal of
Management Inquiry 7(2), 163–186.
Fondas, N.: 1997, ÔFeminization Unveiled: Management
Qualities in Contemporary WritingsÕ,Academy of
Management Review 22(1), 257–282.
Gallos, J.: 1989, ÔExploring WomenÕs Development:
Implications for Career Theory, Practice, and
ResearchÕ, in M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall and B. S.
Lawrence (eds.), Handbook of Career Theory (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge), pp. 110–132.
Gersick, C. and K. Kram: 2002, ÔHigh Achieving
Women at Midlife: An Exploratory StudyÕ,Journal of
Management Inquiry 11(2), 104–127.
Gordon, J. R. and K. S. Whelan: 1998, ÔSuccessful Pro-
fessional Women in Midlife: How Organizations Can
More Effectively Understand and Respond to the
ChallengesÕ,The Academy of Management Executive
12(1), 8–27.
Gordon, J. R., J. E. Beatty and K. S. Whelan-Berry: 2002,
ÔThe Midlife Transition of Professional Women with
ChildrenÕ,Women in Management Review 17(7), 328–341.
Hackett, G.: 1997, ÔPromise and Problems in Theory and
Research on WomenÕs Career DevelopmentÕ,Journal
of Counseling Psychology 44(2), 184–188.
Hall, D. T.: 1996, The Career is Dead, Long Live the Career
(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Hall, D. T.: 2004, ÔThe Protean Career: A Quarter Centur y
JourneyÕ,Journal of Vocational Behavior 65(1), 1–13.
Hall, D. T. and P. H. Mirvis: 1995, ÔThe New Career
Contract: Developing the Whole Person at Midlife
and BeyondÕ,Journal of Vocational Behavior 47(3), 269–
289.
Hamilton, E. A., J. R. Gordon and K. S. Whelan-Berry:
2006, ÔUnderstanding the Work–Life Conflict of
Never Married Women Without ChildrenÕ,Women in
Management Review 21(5), 393–415.
Hearn, J. and P. W. Parkin: 1986, ÔWomen, Men and
Leadership: A Critical Review of Assumptions,
Practices, and Change in the Industrialized NationsÕ,
International Studies of Management and Organization
16(3/4), 33–60.
Helfat, C. E., D. Harris and P. J. Wolfson: 2006, ÔThe
Pipeline to the Top: Women and Men in the Top
Executive Ranks of U.S. CorporationsÕ,Academy of
Management Perspectives 20(4), 42–64.
Hewlett, S. A.: 2002, ÔExecutive Women and the Myth
of Having it AllÕ,Harvard Business Review 80(4), 66–73.
Hewlett, S. A. and C. B. Luce: 2005, ÔOff-Ramps and
On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road
to SuccessÕ,Harvard Business Review 83(3), 43–54.
Hopkins, M. M. and D. A. OÕNeil: 2007, ÔWomen and
Success: Dilemmas and OpportunitiesÕ,inD.
Bilimoria and S. K. Piderit (eds.), Handbook on Women
in Business and Management (Edwin Elgar Publishing
Limited, Cheltenham, UK), pp. 132–153.
Huang, Q. and M. Sverke: 2007, ÔWomenÕs Occupational
Career Patterns Over 27 Years: Relations to Family of
Origin, Life Careers, and WellnessÕ,Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior 70, 369–397.
Hurley, A. E. and J. A. Sonnenfeld: 1997, ÔA Study of the
Tournament Model With Female ManagersÕ,Women
in Management Review 12(3), 91–99.
Ibarra, H.: 1993, ÔPersonal Networks of Women and
Minorities in Management: A Conceptual Frame-
workÕ,Academy of Management Review 18(1), 56–81.
Jacobson, S. W. and I. Aaltio-Marjosola: 2001, ÔStrong
Objectivity and the Use of Q-Methodology in Cross-
cultural ResearchÕ,Journal of Management Inquiry 10(3),
228–248.
Judiesch, M. K. and K. S. Lyness: 1999, ÔLeft Behind?
The Impact of Leaves of Absence on ManagersÕ
Career SuccessÕ,Academy of Management Journal 42(6),
641–651.
Kanter, R. M.: 1977, Men and Women of the Corporation
(BasicBooks, New York).
Kirchmeyer, C.: 1998, ÔDeterminants of Managerial
Career Success: Evidence and Explanation of Male/
Female DifferencesÕ,Journal of Management 24(6), 673–
692.
Kirchmeyer, C.: 2002, ÔGender Differences in Managerial
Careers: Yesterday, Today, and TomorrowÕ,Journal of
Business Ethics 37(1), 5–24.
Larwood, L. and B. A. Gutek: 1987, ÔWorking Towards a
Theory of WomenÕs Career DevelopmentÕ,inB.A.
Gutek and L. Larwood (eds.), WomenÕs Career Devel-
opment (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).
Lefkowitz, J.: 1994, ÔSex-Related Differences in Job Atti-
tudes and Dispositional Variables: Now You See
them…Õ,Academy of Management Journal 37(2), 323–349.
Lepine, I.: 1992, ÔMaking Their Way in the Organiza-
tion: Women Managers in QuebecÕ,Women in Man-
agement Review 7(3), 17–21.
Lyness, K. S. and D. E. Thompson: 1997, ÔAbove the
Glass Ceiling? A Comparison of Matched Samples of
740 Deborah A. OÕNeil et al.
Female and Male ExecutivesÕ,Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 82(3), 359–375.
Lyness, K. S. and D. E. Thompson: 2000, ÔClimbing the
Corporate Ladder: Do Female and Male Executives
Follow the Same Route?Õ,Journal of Applied Psychology
85(1), 86–101.
Mainiero, L. A.: 1994, ÔGetting Anointed for Advance-
ment: The Case of Executive WomenÕ,The Academy of
Management Executive 8(2), 53–67.
Mainiero, L. A. and S. E. Sullivan: 2005, ÔKaleidoscope
Careers: An Alternate Explanation for the Opt-Out
RevolutionÕ,The Academy of Management Executive
19(1), 106–123.
Marshall, J.: 1995, Women Managers Moving on: Exploring
Career and Life Choices (Routledge, London and New
York).
Martins, L. L., K. A. Eddleston and J. F. Veiga: 2002,
ÔModerators of the Relationship Between Work–
Family Conflict and Career SatisfactionÕ,Academy of
Management Journal 45(2), 399–409.
Mattis, M. C.: 2004, ÔWomen Entrepreneurs: Out from
Under the Glass CeilingÕ,Women in Management
Review 19(3), 154–163.
Mavin, S.: 2001, ÔWomenÕs Careers in Theory & Prac-
tice: Time for Change?Õ,Women in Management Review
16(4), 183–192.
McDonald, P., K. Brown and L. Bradley: 2005, ÔHave
Traditional Career Paths Given Way to Protean
Ones?Õ,Career Development International 10(2), 109–
129.
Melamed, T.: 1995, ÔCareer Success: The Moderating
Effect of GenderÕ,Journal of Vocational Behavior 47, 35–
60.
Moore, D. P. and E. H. Buttner: 1997, Women Entre-
preneurs: Moving Beyond the Glass Ceiling (Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA).
Moore, D. P.: 2000, Careerpreneurs (Davies-Black Pub-
lishing, Palo Alto, CA).
Morrison, A. M., R. P. White, E. Van Velsor and the
Center for Creative Leadership: 1992, Breaking the
Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of AmericaÕs
Largest Corporations? (Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA).
Netemeyer, R. G., J. S. Boles and R. McMurrian: 1996,
ÔDevelopment and Validation of Work–Family Con-
flict and Family-work Conflict ScalesÕ,Journal of
Applied Psychology 81(4), 400–410.
Oakley, J. G.: 2000, ÔGender-Based Barriers to Senior
Management Positions: Understanding the Scarcity of
Female CEOsÕ,Journal of Business Ethics 27, 321–334.
Osterman, P.: 1995, ÔWork/family Programs and the
Employment RelationshipÕ,Administrative Science
Quarterly 40, 681–700.
OÕLeary, J.: 1997, ÔDeveloping a New Mindset: The
ÔCareer AmbitiousÕIndividualÕ,Women in Management
Review 12(3), 91–99.
OÕNeil, D. A.: 2003, ÔWorking in Context: Under-
standing the Career-In-Life Experiences of WomenÕ,
Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI 3097354.
OÕNeil, D. A. and D. Bilimoria: 2005, ÔWomenÕs Career
Development Phases: Idealism, Endurance, and
ReinventionÕ,Career Development International 10(3),
168–189.
OÕNeil, D. A., D. Bilimoria and A. Saatcioglu: 2004,
ÔWomenÕs Career Types: Attributions of Satisfaction
with Career SuccessÕ,Career Development International
9(5), 478–500.
Osipow, S. H. and L. H. Fitzgerald: 1996, Theories of
Career Development 4 (Allyn & Bacon, Needham
Heights, MA).
Pinchot, G.: 1985, Intrapreneuring: Why You DonÕt have to
Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur (Harper
and Row, New York).
Poole, M. E., J. Langan-Fox, M. Ciavarella and M.
Omodei: 1991, ÔA Contextualist Model of Professional
Attainment: Results of a Longitudinal Study of Career
Paths of Men and WomenÕ,The Counseling Psychologist
19(4), 603–624.
Porter,L.W.,R.M.Steers,R.T.MowdayandP.V.
Boultian: 1974, ÔOrganizational Commitment, Job
Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric
TechniciansÕ,JournalofAppliedPsychology59(5),
603–609.
Powell, G. N. and L. A. Mainiero: 1992, ÔCross-Currents
in the River of Time: Conceptualizing the Com-
plexities of WomenÕs CareersÕ,Journal of Management
18(2), 215–237.
Powell, G. N., D. A. Butterfield and J. D. Parent: 2002,
ÔGender and Managerial Stereotypes: Have the Time
Changed?Õ,Journal of Management 28, 177–193.
Pringle, J. K. and K. M. Dixon: 2003, ÔRe-Incarnating
Life in the Careers of WomenÕ,Career Development
International 8(6), 291–300.
Ragins, B. R., B. Townsend and M. Mattis: 1998, ÔGender
Gap in the Executive Suite: CEOs and Female Execu-
tives Report on Breaking the Glass CeilingÕ,The Acad-
emy of Management Executive 12(1), 28–42.
Richardson, C.: 1996, ÔSnakes and Ladders? The Differ-
ing Career Patterns of Male & Female AccountantsÕ,
Women in Management Review 11(4), 13–19.
Richie, B. S., R. E. Fassinger, S. G. Linn, J. Johnson,
J. Prosser and S. Robinson: 1997, ÔPersistence,
Connection and Passion: A Qualitative Study of
the Career Development of Highly Achieving
African-American-Black and White WomenÕ,Journal
of Counseling Psychology 44(2), 133–148.
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the 21st Century 741
Ridgeway, C. L.: 2001, ÔGender, Status and LeadershipÕ,
Journal of Social Issues 57(4), 637–655.
Rindfleish, J. and A. Sheridan: 2003, ÔNo Change from
Within: Senior Women ManagersÕResponse to
Gendered Organizational StructuresÕ,Women in Man-
agement Review 18(6), 299–310.
Rosin, H. and K. Korabik: 1995, ÔOrganizational Expe-
riences and Propensity to Leave: A Multivariate
Investigation of Men and Women ManagersÕ,Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 46.
Rothbard, N. P.: 2001, ÔEnriching or Depleting? The
Dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family RolesÕ,
Administrative Science Quarterly 46, 655–684.
Ruderman, M. N., P. J. Ohlott, K. Panzer and S. N.
King: 2002, ÔBenefits of Multiple Roles for Managerial
WomenÕ,The Academy of Management Journal 45(2),
369–386.
Ryan, M. K. and S. A. Haslam: 2005, ÔThe Glass Cliff:
Evidence that Women are Over-Represented in Pre-
carious Leadership PositionsÕ,British Journal of Man-
agement 16, 81–90.
Schein, V. E.: 1993, ÔThe Work–Family Interface:
Challenging Corporate ConvenientÕ,Women in Man-
agement Review 8(4), 22–27.
Schein, V. E.: 2007, ÔWomen in Management: Reflec-
tions and ProjectionsÕ,Women in Management Review
22(1), 6–18.
Schneer, J. A. and F. Reitman: 1995, ÔThe Impact of
Gender as Managerial Careers UnfoldÕ,Journal of
Vocational Behavior 47, 290–315.
Schneer, J. A. and F. Reitman: 2002, ÔManagerial Life
Without a Wife: Family Structure and Managerial
Career SuccessÕ,Journal of Business Ethics 37, 25–38.
Schwartz, D. B.: 1996, ÔThe Impact of Work–Family
Policies on WomenÕs Career Development: Boon or
Bust?Õ,Women in Management Review 11(1), 5–19.
Schwartz, F. N.: 1992, ÔWomen as a Business ImperativeÕ,
Harvard Business Review 70(2), 105–114.
Simpson, R.: 1997, ÔHave Times Changed? Career Bar-
riers and the Token Women ManagerÕ,British Journal
of Management 8, S121–S130.
Simpson, R.: 2000, ÔGender Mix and Organizational Fit:
How Gender Imbalance at Different Levels of the
Organization Impacts on Women ManagersÕ,Women
in Management Review 15(1), 5–19.
Singh, V., S. Vinnicombe and S. Kumra: 2006, ÔWomen
in Formal Corporate Networks: An Organisational
Citizenship PerspectiveÕ,Women in Management Review
21(6), 458–482.
Smart, R. M.: 1998, ÔCareer Stages in Australian Profes-
sional Women: A Test of SuperÕs ModelÕ,Journal of
Vocational Behavior 52, 379–395.
Still, L. and W. Timms: 1998, ÔCareer Barriers and the
Older Women ManagerÕ,Women in Management
Review 13(4), 143–155.
Stroh, L. K., J. M. Brett and A. H. Reilly: 1992, ÔAll the
Right Stuff: A Comparison of Female and Male
ManagersÕCareer ProgressionÕ,Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 77(3), 251–260.
Stroh, L. K., J. M. Brett and A. H. Reilly: 1996, ÔFamily
Structure, Glass Ceiling, and Traditional Explanations for
the Differential Rate of Turnover of Female and Male
ManagersÕ,Journal of Vocational Behavior 49, 99–118.
Sturges, J.: 1999, ÔWhat it Means to Succeed: Personal
Conceptions of Career Success Held by Male and
Female Managers at Different AgesÕ,British Journal of
Management 10, 239–252.
Sullivan, S. E.: 1999, ÔThe Changing Nature of Careers:
A Review and Research AgendaÕ,Journal of Manage-
ment 25(3), 457–484.
Sullivan, S. E. and M. Arthur: 2006, ÔThe Evolution of
the Boundaryless Career Concept: Examining Physical
and Psychological MobilityÕ,Journal of Vocational
Behavior 69(1), 19–29.
Tenbrusel, A. E., J. M. Brett, E. Maoz, L. K. Stroh and A.
H. Reilly: 1995, ÔDynamic and Static Work–Family
RelationshipsÕ,Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 63(3), 233–246.
Tharenou, P.: 2001, ÔGoing Up? Do Traits and Informal
Social Processes Predict Advancing in Management?Õ,
Academy of Management Journal 44(5), 1005–1017.
Tharenou, P., S. Latimer and D. Conroy: 1994, ÔHow do
You Make it to the Top? An Examination of the Influ-
ences on WomenÕsandMenÕs Managerial AdvancementÕ,
Academy of Management Journal 37(4), 899–921.
Thompson, C. A., L. L. Beauvais and K.S. Lyness: 1999,
ÔWhen Work–Family Benefits are Not Enough: The
Influence of Work–Family Culture on Benefit Utili-
zation, Organizational Attachment, and Work–Family
ConflictÕ,Journal of Vocational Behavior 54, 392–415.
Tomlinson, J.: 2004, ÔPerceptions and Negotiations of the
ÔBusiness CaseÕfor Flexible Careers and the Integration
of Part Time WorkÕ,Women in Management Review
19(8), 413–420.
U.S. Department of Labor – WomenÕs Bureau: ‘‘Quick
Stats’’, http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm,
retrieved 4/25/07.
White, B.: 1995, ÔThe Career Development of Suc-
cessful WomenÕ,Women in Management Review 10(3),
4–15.
Winsor, R. D. and E. A. Ensher: 2002, ÔChoices Made in
Balancing Work and Family: Following Two Women
on a 16-Year JourneyÕ,Journal of Management 9(2),
218–231.
742 Deborah A. OÕNeil et al.
Deborah A. OÕNeil
Department of Management,
College of Business Administration,
Bowling Green State University,
Bowling Green, OH, 43403,
E-mail: oneild@bgsu.edu
Margaret M. Hopkins
Department of Management,
College of Business Administration,
University of Toledo,
Toledo, OH, 43606,
E-mail: margaret.hopkins@utoledo.edu
Diana Bilimoria
Organizational Behavior,
Case Western Reserve University,
Euclid Avenue,
Cleveland, OH, 44106,
U.S.A.
E-mail: diana.bilimoria@case.edu
WomenÕs Careers at the Start of the 21st Century 743
