This paper examines the intersection of gender, career development, and communication in the workplace. It argues that despite nominal progress toward gender equality, deeply embedded social and cultural assumptions continue to shape women's career choices, limit their advancement, and define their professional identities. The paper discusses how men and women differ in their career motivations, how stereotyping operates in corporate and academic environments, and how women's career paths are frequently interrupted by family obligations. Special attention is given to the compounded challenges faced by Asian-American and African-American women, whose career decisions are further constrained by ethnic cultural expectations and community environments.
Finding a job is only the first step on the ladder of success. Without proper career planning, happiness and fulfillment can prove elusive. Planning a career involves many factors, the importance of which varies according to the individual and, interestingly, to the individual's gender. Even in today's supposedly "gender-neutral" society, gender assumptions play a powerful role in determining and limiting career choices (Konrad, Yang, Goldberg, & Sullivan, 2005). How men and women behave, and how they conform to perceived gender roles, can positively or adversely affect future success. The communication of one's gender role is thus of paramount importance.
In general, studies have shown that men tend to focus more on financial achievement — on status and power. Earning money is correlated directly with the idea of "being a man" (Wicks, 1996, p. 116). For women, however, the situation is often quite different. Women tend to pursue careers less for the satisfaction of earnings than for the sense of completeness that work gives them (Mendelson, 1990, pp. 12–14). These differences in career expectations and goals can create real conflicts within the workplace.
Especially in the corporate milieu, an attitude prevails that is perceived as essentially masculine. Work as career, and achievement defined as climbing to the top of the corporate pyramid, are viewed as attributes of a quintessentially male world. Women who aspire to these same heights are seen as either surrendering their femininity or as deliberately seeking to subvert what has always been a masculine domain (Wicks, 1996, p. 48). For the woman who chooses to pursue a career, managing that career means making choices not only about which path to follow at work, but also about how to structure her life — relating goals of family, children, marriage, and home to professional ambition. For women, career management is fundamentally about managing life.
Women in the workplace are all too frequently the victims of stereotyping. The overwhelmingly male world of corporate management frequently misconstrues the purpose and goals of the female employee. Businesswomen are thought to be out to "prove something" — to accomplish goals other than serving the interests of the company. Men, it is believed, consider career an end in itself. A woman who shows excessive devotion to her job, who puts in long hours, who goes above and beyond the requirements of her position, is reckoned an opportunist — or, worse, a feminist (Anderson et al., 2004).
Even in environments usually considered liberal, openness to female achievement is, many times, more theory than fact. Women in academia, for example, appear to be held to higher standards than men. Their work can be attacked more easily, and more viciously, than would be considered acceptable in the case of a male colleague. In one account:
"[A woman] told the story of a faculty member who was gleefully pointing out his harsh critique of an article that he 'ripped to shreds.' My friend asked him if it made him feel like more of a scholar to tear apart another's ideas. For me, this story was an avenue for talking about a shared frustration with this competitive view of the academy." (Anderson et al., 2004)
Highly talented, ambitious women face enormous hurdles when attempting to succeed in traditionally male fields of employment. They must learn to adjust their own aim of personal satisfaction to fit within the male ethos of career achievement — an ethos that treats professional success as something distinct from personal fulfillment. This can be an extremely difficult task, as studies have shown, again and again, the centrality of personal fulfillment to women's career achievement.
A 1998 study by Janice C. Bizzari, examining three women of different generations, confirmed the persistence of this pattern:
"Critical to the happiness of the gifted women in this study is the issue of personal satisfaction. Personal satisfaction, equated to quality of life, was the primary motivator that affected all other aspects of life. Education became an act of empowerment; however, career aspirations were confined or reduced to those traditional to women. The manner in which decisions were made by each woman in this study was significant to her quality of life, but no one can say what might have occurred had other decisions been made." (Bizzari, 1998, p. 110)
The pressure to conform to traditional women's roles clearly shapes both career choice and long-term professional goals.
"Family obligations and relocation derail women's careers"
"Asian-American and African-American women face layered barriers"
Johnson, M. K., & Mortimer, J. T. (2002). Career choice and development from a sociological perspective. In Career choice and development (pp. 37–69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Konrad, A. M., Yang, Y., Goldberg, C., & Sullivan, S. E. (2005). Preferences for job attributes associated with work and family: A longitudinal study of career outcomes. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 53(5–6), 303+.
Mendelson, J. (1990). Corporate women and social change. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A decade of research. 31+.
Trusty, J. (2002). African Americans' educational expectations: Longitudinal causal models for women and men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(3), 332+.
Wicks, S. (1996). Warriors and wildmen: Men, masculinity, and gender. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.