CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Gender Diversity and InequalityGender Politics and RepresentationMedia, Gender, and Advertising

Women and Leadership in the United States: Are We Closing the Gender Gap?

Open access
Lyness, Karen S., Grotto, Angela R.·2018·Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104739
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Women in the United States are making historic progress in business leadership, with research linking women's leadership representation to positive outcomes. However, men still dominate US leadership, raising several key questions. Is the United States closing the leadership gender gap? What organizational barriers perpetuate the gap? What facilitates women's leadership? We synthesized and extended US literature to develop a multilevel organizational model of Barriers And Facilitators of Female Leader Empowerment, called the “BAFFLE” Female Leadership Model to highlight the baffling complexities and limited success in solving the US leadership gender gap. The review found that literature narrowly focuses on barriers and offers limited insights about how to facilitate female leader empowerment while simultaneously addressing systemic, entrenched organizational barriers. We also used the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Gender Gap Index to provide global perspective on the US leadership gender gap. Finally, we summarize findings and implications for practice and scholarship.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104739

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Day DV, Fleenor JW, Atwater LE, Sturm RE, McKee RA. 2014. Advances in leader and leadership develop- ment: a review of 25 years of research and theory. Leadersh. Q. 25:63-82
  2. DeRue DS, Ashford SJ. 2010. Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35(4):427-47
  3. Eagly AH. 2012. Women as leaders: progress through the labyrinth. In Social Categories in Everyday Experience, ed. S Wiley, G Philogène, TA Revenson, pp. 63-82. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
  4. Eagly AH, Carli LL. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harv. Bus. Press
  5. Emrich CG, Denmark FL, Den Hartog DN. 2004. Cross-cultural differences in gender egalitarianism: im- plications for societies, organizations, and leaders. In Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, ed. RJ House, PJ Hanges, M Javidan, PW Dorfman, V Gupta, pp. 343-94. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  6. Gelfand MJ, Nishii LH, Raver JL, Schneider B. 2005. Discrimination in organizations: an organizational-level systems perspective. In Discrimination at Work, ed. RL Dipboye, SM Colarelli, pp. 89-116. Mahwah, NJ: Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol.
  7. Heilman ME. 1983. Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. In Research in Organizational Behavior, ed. BM Staw, LL Cummings, pp. 269-98. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
  8. Hoobler JM, Masterson CR, Nkomo SM, Michel EJ. 2016. The business case for women leaders: meta- analysis, research critique, and path forward. J. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316628643 · DOI
  9. Kegan R, Lahey LL. 2016. An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization. Boston: Harv. Bus. Rev. Press
  10. Kulik CT, Metz I. 2017. Women at the top: Will more women in senior roles impact organizational outcomes? In The Oxford Handbook of Strategy Implementation, ed. MA Hitt, SE Jackson, S Carmona, L Bierman, CE Shalley, M Wright, pp. 239-75. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
  11. Lyness KS, Judiesch MK, Erkovan HE. 2018. The work-family interface and careers in the global workplace: insights from cross-national research. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work-Family Interface, ed.
  12. KM Shockley, W Shen, RC Johnson, pp. 497-516. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
  13. Murphy W, Kram K. 2014. Strategic Relationships at Work: Creating your Circle of Mentors, Sponsors, and Peers for Success in Business and Life: New York: McGraw-Hill
  14. Prime J, Otterman M, Salib ER. 2014. Engaging men through inclusive leadership. In Gender in Organizations: Are Men Allies or Adversaries to Women's Career Advancement?, ed. RJ Burke, DA Major, pp. 385-404.
  15. Stead V, Elliott C. 2009. Women's Leadership. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
  16. Stewart P. 1988. Women and men in groups: a status characteristics approach to interaction. In Status Gener- alization: New Theory and Research, ed. M Webster Jr., M Foschi, pp. 69-85. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  17. Stone P. 2007. Opting out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press
  18. Terjesen S, Sealy R, Singh V. 2009. Women directors on corporate boards: a review and research agenda. Corp. Gov. 17:320-37
  19. Wright S. 2016. Competence, warmth, and expectations: an integration of status characteristics theory and the stereotype content model. PhD Thesis, Univ. Ariz. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/556454
  20. Physiological Measurement in the Organizational Sciences: A Review and Recommendations for Future Use

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lyness, K. S., & Grotto, A. R.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
  • Manhattan University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2018-01-21
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
227-265
ISSN
  • 2327-0608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-0616
DOI
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104739
OpenAlex
W2609023893
Cited by
122
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Media, Gender, and Advertising
Keywords
women in leadership, gender differences in leadership, organizational barriers, corporate leadership, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review