Glass ceiling versus sticky floor, sideways sexism and priming a manager to think male as barriers to equality in clinical psychology: An interpretive phenomenological analysis approach.

Abstract

The profession of clinical psychology is predominantly populated by women, yet women are significantly underrepresented in the higher levels of the profession. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of gender difference and implicit bias within the profession of clinical psychology. Through 16 semistructured interviews with psychologists at four different trajectories of their clinical psychology career (10 assistant psychologists, 2 clinical trainees, 3 qualified clinicians, and 1 principal (management grade) clinical psychologist), participants explored their perceptions and experiences with gender discrimination, stereotyping, and implicit discrimination within their roles. An interpretative phenomenological analytic (IPA) approach was employed and superordinate and subordinate themes were derived from the interview data. The superordinate themes included: “Priming a manager—think male,” “Sideways Sexism,” and “Glass Ceiling or Sticky Floor?.” Participants’ experiences were described by a number of issues relating to primed and assumed leadership, societal expectations and pressures, how women relate to other women, the experience of a different kind of scrutiny, and sacrifice and compromise. In order to challenge gender inequality in clinical psychology, it would be helpful for gender bias to be increasingly spoken about and acknowledged explicitly. Furthermore, the idea that an effective psychology manager should exert masculine qualities needs to be challenged.

Diversified Organizational Inequality Regimes and Ideal Workers in a “Growth-Driven,” “Diverse,” “Flexible” Australian Company: A Multilevel Grounded Theory

“…Research has also found that women are more likely than men to lack confidence in their ability to fulfil professional roles and competencies (Cech et al 2011) and be averse to self-promotion (Broughton and Miller 2009). Additionally, participant narratives revealed interpersonal gender and race-deviance penalties, consistent with research and reflecting societal discourses of dominant masculinities and submissive femininities (Williams et al 2013;Berdahl et al 2018;Reynolds et al 2022): women who performed masculine competition and confidence could be resented and "not liked," which may have been exacerbated by stereotypes of submissive, modest or shy Asian women (Dodds 2012); while men could be more stigmatized than women for deviating from masculine confidence and extroversion by performing feminine quietness.…”

“…Research finding that white, male-dominated senior managers have promoted employees in their own image, suggests that such practices can increase conscious and unconscious bias's influence and undermine equality and diversity (Broughton and Miller 2009;Reynolds et al 2022). Moreover, extreme and conformant characteristics (Section 3.3) of "well-liked" employees who were rewarded with pre-determined promotions (Section 3.2.5), contributed to organizational inequality regimes.…”

“…Interactions between organizational-level processes and societal contexts impose practical consequences at individual and relationship levels within organizations, which reinforce inequality regimes. Organizational worker hierarchies can make employees falling within socially constructed categories subordinated to idealized configurations, feel excluded and exclude themselves from organizations; create gendered, classed, raced, aged and abled barriers and facilitators to performing, and being rewarded for, extreme and conformant worker practices and qualities; result in recruitment, remuneration, development and promotion decisions based on unconscious bias that employees will, or will not, perform idealized configurations; lead to the double bind of stigmatization of employees who deviate from their own socially constructed identities in order to perform idealized practices or qualities, or who deviate from idealized configurations despite their socially constructed identities falling within them; require employees to suppress authentic performances of individual practices, qualities and identities deviating from idealized configurations, in order to reap the rewards of conformance and avoid penalties for deviation; and impact employees' mental health and wellbeing (Berdahl et al 2018;Matos et al 2018;Parry and Smeaton 2018;Cheryan and Markus 2020;Repchuck 2022;Reynolds et al 2022). Despite (or because of) these societally and organizationally driven consequences, employees are discursively constituted as neoliberal corporate selves individually responsible for their own work and life successes or failures, thereby absolving organizations of responsibility for addressing inequality processes which promote growth (Toth 2005).…”

“…These mutually reinforcing processes can produce gendered, classed, raced, aged and abled hegemonic worker configurations or defaults, which are valued, rewarded, normalized and constructed as necessary (Cheryan and Markus 2020;Holgersson and Romani 2020). For example, research has suggested that some organizations value and reward stereotypically masculine-white-Western characteristics, such as dominance, aggression, competition, individualism and rationality, and devalue and penalize stereotypically feminine-colored-collective characteristics, such as submissiveness, nurturance and empathy; but penalize those who deviate from stereotypes aligning with their socially constructed identities (Ely and Meyerson 2000;Van Vianen and Fischer 2002;Charlesworth and Baird 2007;Broughton and Miller 2009;Devine et al 2011;Dodds 2012;Williams et al 2013;Berdahl et al 2018;Reynolds et al 2022). In this respect, Acker (2012) has called for organizational inequality regime research beyond gender.…”