Making it onto the shortlist is often a crucial early step toward professional advancement. For under-represented candidates, one barrier to making the shortlist is the prevalence of informal recruitment practices (for example, colleague recommendations). The current research investigates informal shortlists generated in male-dominant domains (for example, technology executives) and tests a theory-driven intervention to increase the consideration of female candidates. Across ten studies (N = 5,741) we asked individuals to generate an informal shortlist of candidates for a male-dominant role and then asked them to extend the list. We consistently found more female candidates in the extended (versus initial) list. This longer shortlist effect occurs because continued response generation promotes divergence from the category prototype (for example, male technology executives). Studies 3 and 4 supported this mechanism, and study 5 tested the effect of shortlist length on selection decisions. This longer shortlist intervention is a low-cost and simple way to support gender equity efforts.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Scientometrics Open Access 20 February 2023
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
All datasets necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in this article can be found here: https://osf.io/jb2mq/
Rosette, A. S., Akinola, M. & Ma, A. in The Oxford Handbook of Workplace Discrimination vol. 1 (eds A. J. Colella & E. B. King) (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).
Joshi, A., Neely, B., Emrich, C., Griffiths, D. & George, G. Gender research in AMJ: an overview of five decades of empirical research and calls to action. Acad. Manag. J. 58, 1459–1475 (2015).
Ibarra, H., Ely, R. J. & Kolb, D. M. Women rising: the unseen barriers. Harv. Bus. Rev. 91, 60–74 (2013).
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H. & Kolb, D. M. Taking gender into account: theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Acad. Manag. Learn. Edu. 10, 474–493 (2011).
Fernandez, R. M., Castilla, E. J. & Moore, P. Social capital at work: networks and employment at a phone center. Am. J. Sociol. 105, 1288–1356 (2000).
Marsden, P. V. & Gorman, E. H. in Sourcebook on Labor Markets: Evolving Structures and Processes (eds I. Berg & A. L. Kalleberg) (Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2001).
Barron, J. M., Bishop, J. & Dunkelberg, W. C. Employer search: the interviewing and hiring of new employees. Rev. Econ. Stat. 67, 43–52 (1985).
Keller, J. R. Posting and slotting: how hiring processes shape the quality of hire and compensation in internal labor markets. Admin. Sci. Q. 63, 848–878 (2017).
Belli, G. How many jobs are found through networking, really? in PayScale (2017).
Petersen, T., Saporta, I. & Seidel, M. L. Offering a job: meritocracy and social networks. Am. J. Sociol. 106, 763–816 (2000).
Kirnan, J. P., Farley, J. A. & Geisinger, K. F. The relationship between recruiting source, applicant quality, and hire performance: an analysis by sex, ethnicity, and age. Pers. Psychol. 42, 293–308 (1989).
Leicht, K. T. & Marx, J. The consequences of informal job finding for men and women. Acad. Manag. J. 40, 967–987 (1997).
Srull, T. K. & Wyer, R. S. Category accessibility and social perception: some implications for the study of person memory and interpersonal judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38, 841–856 (1980).
Dasgupta, N. & Asgari, S. Seeing is believing: exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 642–658 (2004).
Deutsch, M. Distributive Justice (Yale Univ. Press, 1985).
Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. Social Cognition (Addison-Wesley, 1991).
Hogg, M. A. A social identity theory of leadership. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 184–200 (2001).
Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109, 573–598 (2002).
Brescoll, V. L. Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. Leadersh. Q. 27, 415–428 (2016).
Brescoll, V. L. & Uhlmann, E. L. Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychol. Sci. 19, 268–275 (2008).
Rudman, L. A. & Fairchild, K. Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: the role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 157–176 (2004).
Abraham, M. Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: an examination of networking among entrepreneurs. Admin. Sci. Q. 65, 151–180 (2020).
Atir, S. & Ferguson, M. J. How gender determines the way we speak about professionals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, 7278–7283 (2018).
Nosek, B. A. et al. National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106, 10593–10597 (2009).
Nosek, B. A. et al. Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18, 36–88 (2007).
Rudman, L. A. & Glick, P. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57, 743–762 (2001).
Mednick, S. A. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol. Rev. 69, 220–232 (1962).
Beaty, R. E. & Silvia, P. J. Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent thinking tasks. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 6, 309–319 (2012).
Lucas, B. J. & Nordgren, L. F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 232–243 (2015).
Lucas, B. J. & Nordgren, L. F. The creative cliff illusion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 19830–19836 (2020).
Lu, J. G., Akinola, M. & Mason, M. F. “Switching on” creativity: task switching can increase creativity by reducing cognitive fixation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 139, 63–75 (2017).
Biernat, M. & Fuegen, K. Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. J. Soc. Issues 57, 707–724 (2001).
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A. & Rosenthal, R. Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 10, 535–549 (2016).
Shalley, C. E. & Gilson, L. L. What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadersh. Q. 15, 33–53 (2004).
Shin, S. J., Kim, T. Y., Lee, J. Y. & Bian, L. Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: a cross-level interaction. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 197–212 (2012).
Leung, A. K. Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D. & Chiu, C. Y. Multicultural experience enhances creativity: the when and how. Am. Psychol. 63, 169–181 (2008).
De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M. & Nijstad, B. A. Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 739–756 (2008).
Helzer, E. G. & Kim, S. H. Creativity for workplace well-being. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33, 134–147 (2019).
Chang, E. H. et al. The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 7778–7783 (2019).
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. & Kelly, E. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71, 589–617 (2006).
Hugenberg, K., Bodenhausen, G. V. & McLain, M. Framing discrimination: effects of inclusion versus exclusion mind-sets on stereotypic judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 1020–1031 (2006).
Apfelbaum, E. P., Norton, M. I. & Sommers, S. R. Racial color blindness: emergence, practice, and implications. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21, 205–209 (2012).
Chang, E. H., Kirgios, E. L., Rai, A. & Milkman, K. L. The isolated choice effect and its implications for gender diversity in organizations. Manag. Sci. 66, 2752–2761 (2020).
The authors thank members of the ExPO Lab for useful feedback. The authors received no specific funding for this work.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Molly Carnes, Susan Teubner-Rhodes and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor(s): Samantha Antusch, Mary Elizabeth Sutherland and Stavroula Kousta.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Lucas, B.J., Berry, Z., Giurge, L.M. et al. A longer shortlist increases the consideration of female candidates in male-dominant domains. Nat Hum Behav 5, 736–742 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01033-0
This article is cited by