Gender Discrimination and the Wage Gap in the Workplace
This literature review examines gender discrimination in the workplace, drawing on a wide range of academic sources to explore its foundations, manifestations, and measurable consequences. The paper begins by defining discrimination broadly, then narrows to gender-specific forms, using workplace metaphors such as the leaky pipeline, sticky floor, glass cliff, and maternal wall to illustrate how discrimination operates. It then analyzes the effects of gender discrimination on individual health, job satisfaction, and organizational performance before turning to a focused discussion of the gender wage gap—its historical trends, structural causes at the micro, meso, and macro levels, and the compounding disadvantages faced by women of color. The review concludes with policy implications rooted in labor market reform and recruitment equity.
- Introduction to Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: Overview of literature review scope and structure
- Fundamentals of Discrimination: Defining discrimination and its structural forms
- What Gender Discrimination Looks Like: Metaphors and manifestations of gendered workplace bias
- Effects of Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: Health, performance, and organizational consequences
- Gender Discrimination and the Wage Gap: Causes and trends in male-female pay disparity
- References: Full academic reference list
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper builds its argument systematically, moving from broad definitional groundwork to specific manifestations of gender discrimination and finally to its measurable economic consequences, giving the review a clear logical progression.
- The use of workplace metaphors (leaky pipeline, sticky floor, glass cliff, maternal wall, labyrinth) is an effective rhetorical strategy that makes abstract structural discrimination concrete and memorable for the reader.
- The paper integrates multiple academic sources per claim, demonstrating thorough engagement with the scholarly literature rather than relying on any single authority.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates effective thematic synthesis in a literature review. Rather than summarizing sources one by one, the author groups findings from multiple studies around shared themes—types of discrimination, metaphorical framings, health effects, pay inequity—showing how different scholars converge on or nuance the same issues. This approach is a hallmark of graduate-level literature review writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then moves through four substantive sections: a conceptual foundation for discrimination generally; a taxonomy of gendered workplace discrimination illustrated through metaphor; a discussion of individual and organizational effects; and a dedicated analysis of the gender wage gap at micro, meso, and macro levels. A reference list closes the paper. Each section builds on the previous, creating a coherent analytical arc from definition to consequence to policy implication.
Introduction to Gender Discrimination in the Workplace
This literature review examines scholarly work related to social injustice and inequality in the workplace, with a focus on gender discrimination. First, literature related to the fundamentals of discrimination and descriptions of gender discrimination are discussed. Following a detailed examination of what the literature says about gender-specific discrimination, the review shifts toward the quantifiable effects of gender discrimination in the workplace. Effects are examined both in terms of measurable impacts on organizations and on individuals.
Fundamentals of Discrimination
Discrimination is unfortunately pervasive in the workplace. Described as an "inaccurate perception of differences," discrimination can be based on independent variables such as race, gender, language, and other demographics (Cleveland, Vescio & Barnes-Farrell, p. 149). The differences perceived are "inaccurate" and also have a direct impact on status, access to power, and access to avenues of promotion or pay increases. Most literature frames discrimination as being "subtle and covert," well concealed from the realms of legal scrutiny, and often difficult to define precisely (Marchiondo, Ran & Cortina, 2015, p. 47). Likewise, "subtle and unintended processes" are listed as causal factors of discrimination in the workplace (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013, p. 454).
Discrimination can be personal—or one-on-one—or structural in nature, embedded in institutionalized practices, organizational culture, and norms of leadership, communication, and the acquisition of power (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013; Bilkis, Habib & Sharmin, 2010). Marchiondo, Ran & Cortina (2015) classify four types of discrimination: "interpersonal discrimination, aversive racism, everyday discrimination, and selective incivility" (p. 47). The literature also shows that discrimination is about "perceived effectiveness" and is not based on measurable differences in the actual effectiveness of employees (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker & Woehr, 2014). Subordinate employees are therefore rated as being less effective than they truly are, and discrimination becomes embedded, entrenched, and self-perpetuating.
What Gender Discrimination Looks Like
The literature reveals that gender may indeed trump race and other demographics, creating unique and pernicious types of discrimination in the workplace. Even when culture, race, age, and other variables are accounted for, men are perceived as having higher status within their society in general, and are perceived as more "prototypical leaders" in the workplace (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013, p. 457). As a result, human resources practices may inadvertently reflect sexist norms of organizational behavior. Stamarski & Hing (2015), for example, point out that human resources practices and policies—including decision-making processes and the methods by which those policies are enacted and enforced—directly affect the hiring, pay, and promotion of women. Gender discrimination has been defined in the literature as the "underrepresentation of women in elite leadership positions" simultaneous with the "undervaluation of women's effectiveness as leaders" (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker & Woehr, 2014, p. 1129). Gender discrimination is, however, more complex than this single definition suggests. The literature supports a view that gender discrimination has a two-fold manifestation: effects on individual women, and effects on organizational culture.
The types of gender discrimination in the workplace are often described through metaphor. The leaky pipeline refers to the increased rate at which women drop out of particular male-dominated fields, notably STEM disciplines (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013). The leaky pipeline illustrates the self-reinforcing nature of gender discrimination: the more women leave male-dominated fields due to systematic bias, the less likely those fields are to change their organizational cultures.
Other metaphors for gender discrimination in the workplace include the maternal wall, which is linked to work/family/life imbalances (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013). The sticky floor metaphor refers to the tendency of women to become trapped in low-mobility, low-wage work (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013; Channar, Abbasi & Ujan, 2011). Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters (2013) also discuss the glass cliff metaphor, which describes how women's professional lives become "riskier" when they assume positions of greater wealth and power within an organization, as well as the labyrinth metaphor, which captures the unduly complex, convoluted, and difficult paths women must navigate in pursuit of upward mobility and increased status. Stamarski & Hing (2015) refer to hostile and benevolent "brands" of sexism in the workplace; the former is obviously more overt, while the latter is rooted in stereotypical presumptions about women's kind, nurturing, and gentle nature—with corresponding negative implications for women who do not conform to those stereotypes.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.