Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A longer shortlist increases the consideration of female candidates in male-dominant domains

Nature Human Behaviour volume 5, pages 736–742 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

All datasets necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in this article can be found here: https://osf.io/jb2mq/

References

  1. 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).

  2. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ibarra, H., Ely, R. J. & Kolb, D. M. Women rising: the unseen barriers. Harv. Bus. Rev. 91, 60–74 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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).

  7. Barron, J. M., Bishop, J. & Dunkelberg, W. C. Employer search: the interviewing and hiring of new employees. Rev. Econ. Stat. 67, 43–52 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Belli, G. How many jobs are found through networking, really? in PayScale (2017).

  10. Petersen, T., Saporta, I. & Seidel, M. L. Offering a job: meritocracy and social networks. Am. J. Sociol. 106, 763–816 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leicht, K. T. & Marx, J. The consequences of informal job finding for men and women. Acad. Manag. J. 40, 967–987 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Deutsch, M. Distributive Justice (Yale Univ. Press, 1985).

  16. Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. Social Cognition (Addison-Wesley, 1991).

  17. Hogg, M. A. A social identity theory of leadership. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 184–200 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109, 573–598 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Abraham, M. Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: an examination of networking among entrepreneurs. Admin. Sci. Q. 65, 151–180 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Nosek, B. A. et al. Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18, 36–88 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rudman, L. A. & Glick, P. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57, 743–762 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mednick, S. A. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol. Rev. 69, 220–232 (1962).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lucas, B. J. & Nordgren, L. F. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 232–243 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lucas, B. J. & Nordgren, L. F. The creative cliff illusion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 19830–19836 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Helzer, E. G. & Kim, S. H. Creativity for workplace well-being. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33, 134–147 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chang, E. H. et al. The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 7778–7783 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Apfelbaum, E. P., Norton, M. I. & Sommers, S. R. Racial color blindness: emergence, practice, and implications. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21, 205–209 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank members of the ExPO Lab for useful feedback. The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Organizational Behavior Department, Industrial & Labor Relations School, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Brian J. Lucas & Zachariah Berry

  2. Organisational Behaviour Department, London Business School, London, UK

    Laura M. Giurge

  3. Management & Organizations Department, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Dolly Chugh

Authors
  1. Brian J. Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zachariah Berry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura M. Giurge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dolly Chugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.J.L. and D.C. contributed to the project conception. B.J.L. collected and analysed data. Z.B. and L.M.G. collected and analysed data under the supervision of B.J.L. All authors contributed to the manuscript, and all authors approve the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian J. Lucas.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Appendices, Supplementary Tables 1–6 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01033-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing