Sex Roles

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01168-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An Intersectional Approach to the Glass Ceiling: Gender, Race

and Share of Middle and Senior Management in U.S. Workplaces
Katrina R. Bloch 1 & Tiffany Taylor 2 & Jacob Church 2 & Alison Buck 3

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
A robust body of research examines factors affecting the likelihood that women experience increasing barriers to promotion in
workplaces. However, limited research examines how racialized and gendered processes may intersect and work differently for
racially and gender marginalized workers. Specifically, the processes relating to a worker’s ability to reach middle-level man-
agement positions (e.g., those managers who oversee a small group of employees) and senior-level management positions (e.g.,
CEOs and other executive positions) may vary based on workers’ race and gender. Using 2015 EEO-1 data collected by the U.S.
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), we examine how the characteristics of a workplace affect Black men,
Black women, White men, and White women’s share of middle- and senior-level management. We find Black women and Black
men are strikingly under-represented in both middle and senior management in private-sector workplaces. Our results demon-
strate that access to middle- and senior-management varies by the characteristics of the workplace and workers’ race and gender.
Overall, our findings point to an important implication: Greater oversight of workplaces, including by the EEOC, is associated
with marginalized race/gender groups having higher shares of management.

Keywords Glass ceiling . Management personnel . EEOC . Gender gap . Race and ethnic discrimination . Sex discrimination .
Diversity in the workplace . Personnel promotion . Marginalization . Marginalized groups Intersectionality

Crenshaw (1989) begins her classic piece, in which she named crimination varied from White women’s experiences discrimi-
the term intersectionality for academic audiences, with a thor- nation based on gender or Black men’s experiences of discrim-
ough discussion of several employment discrimination cases. In ination based on race. As Crenshaw discusses the examples, she
cases against General Motors, Hughes Helicopter, and others, demonstrates the importance of comparing Black men, Black
Black women’s claims of discrimination were denied because women, White women, and White men instead of race or gen-
they were unable to statistically show a disparate impact in der because intersectionality is relational (Crenshaw 1989).
terms of race or gender. The courts refused to see Black women Other early theorists expand on Crenshaw’s (1989) con-
as a so-called special protected class whose experiences of dis- cept. P. Collins et al. (2000); Collins (2019) contributed the
metaphor of matrix of domination, in which intermeshing sys-
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article tems of oppression form axes which shape people’s experi-
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01168-4) contains supplementary ences differently at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. Since the
material, which is available to authorized users.
work of these early theorists, a growing body of intersectional
research has enriched our understanding of wage gaps, pro-
* Katrina R. Bloch
kbloch@kent.edu motions, and economic inequality (Browne and Misra 2003;
McBride et al. 2015). In her Feminist Lecture, Joan Acker
1 (2006a) proposed the concept of inequality regimes, defined
Department of Sociology, Kent State University at Stark, 6000 Frank
Ave. NW, North Canton, OH 44720, USA as the practices and social processes within organizations that
2 lead to inequality. Some processes included in inequality re-
Department of Sociology, Kent State University, PO Box 5190,
Kent, OH 44242, USA gimes include classic concepts such as the glass ceiling
3 (Williams 1995), strength-in-numbers arguments (Kanter
Department of Anthropology, Sociology & Social Work, Eastern
Kentucky University, 521 Lancaster Ave, Richmond, KY 40475, 1977), and group threat and competition (Blalock 1956).
USA Yet, the conditions under which race and gender intersect

need further study, and classic theoretical concepts need revi-
sion to account for the specific conditions and social processes
that do, or do not, lead to intersecting forms of inequality
(Browne and Misra 2003). Intersections of inequality are sit-
uated within places (McCall 2001; Yuval-Davis 2015) and are
relational (P. Collins 2019); therefore, research must look at
how inequality regimes reproduce inequalities in specific
workplaces (Acker 2006b).
Answering the call for intersectional research that exam-
ines processes affecting the glass ceiling (Acker 2006b;
Browne and Misra 2003; Williams 2013), we examine how
characteristics of workplaces, including their gender and race
composition, are associated with shares of management for
Black women, Black men, White women, and White men.
Following Crenshaw’s (1989) original emphasis on the inter-
sectional experiences of Black women and with an awareness
of the relative invisibility of Black women in research
(Crenshaw 1989; P. Collins 2019), we focus our analysis on
the relative positions of these four groups of workers using
2015 data from the United States Equal Opportunity
Employment Commission (EEOC). These data, EEO-1 re-
ports from the EEOC, describe the racial and gender compo-
sition of private-sector workplaces with over 100 employees
(or 50 employees if the workplace is a federal contractor).
Importantly, they distinguish between managers who may
have a major stake in the workplace’s practices and policies
(e.g., executives and senior-level managers) and those man-
agers who may have less power within their workplace (mid-
dle-level managers). Research focusing solely on women
finds that factors predicting women’s access to management
differs for middle versus senior management (Kmec and
Skaggs 2014). No research about which we are aware has
quantitatively examined access to both middle and senior
management at the intersection of race and gender.
The overrepresentation of White men and the underrepre-
sentation of White women, Black men, and Black women in
both middle-level and senior-level management positions re-
mains an important social problem and an important site for
understanding power relations in the United States. Greater
diversity in management positions is associated with a more
diverse workforce (Huffman et al. 2010). Thus, our research
is important for several reasons. First, it moves beyond looking
at race or gender and analyzes factors that may predict White
women’s, White men’s, Black women’s, and Black men’s
shares of middle and senior management. Second, we utilize
the most recent EEO-1 data, which facilitates a workplace-level
analysis as opposed to individual survey data. Third, we exam-
ine shares of middle and senior management separately, which
provides necessary detail because hiring practices for middle-
management (often internal) and senior-management (more of-
ten external) may differ (Kmec and Skaggs 2014).
These two levels of management further represent different
levels of social mobility, which allows us to incorporate social
Sex Roles
class into our analysis (see Acker’s 2006b, discussion of the
complexities of class as racialized and gendered) and the two
levels of management also represent different levels of “power
and control of organization goals, resources, and outcomes”
(Acker 2006b, p. 443). In what follows, we highlight the lit-
erature examining how race and gender compositions of
workplaces relates to the race and gender composition of man-
agement in workplaces. Then we consider other workplace
characteristics that are associated with the composition of
management. Our results illustrate which workplace situations
benefit or disadvantage White men, White women, Black
men, and Black women and highlight the importance of
relationality to intersectionality and inequality (P. Collins
2019).
Acker (2006b, 2009) argues that inequality regimes struc-
ture inequality within workplaces. One such regime is the
glass ceiling in which workers face multiple and increasing
barriers as they move up in the workplaces’ corporate hierar-
chy (or seek occupational advancement within their field)
(Williams 1995). Research on the glass ceiling provides in-
sights on the increasing artificial barriers that gendered and
racialized groups face as they seek to ascend into the highest
echelons of formal organizations of work. Aside from inequal-
ities in pay, hiring, and representation, the glass ceiling liter-
ature helps illuminate how White women and People of Color
fare when they try for jobs that offer the greatest opportunities
for authority, pay, and decision-making power (Cotter et al.
2001). Although these existing findings are valuable,
Williams (2013) calls for an update on how we conceptualize
the glass ceiling to include a more intersectional lens.
Gender and Race Composition of Workplaces
Kanter (1977) examined women’s access to occupations with-
in large organizations. She found that women were primarily
concentrated in low pay and low status positions. Kanter’s
study found, and others corroborate, that men in powerful
positions do not promote women due to gender stereotypes
about women’s abilities and behavior (DiTomaso 1989), be-
liefs about women’s ability to effectively communicate with
men (Kanter 1977), stereotypes regarding job positions, and
men’s supposed proclivities for leadership (Britton 1997;
Kanter 1977). When women did gain access to higher author-
ity or management positions, they faced increased visibility,
higher performance demands, and social isolation because of
their status as women and tokens within the organization
(Kanter 1977). Kanter hypothesized that greater numbers of
women in high-status and low-status positions in the work-
place would reduce gender stereotypes about women’s ability
to hold management positions and that this would eventually
lead workplaces to hire and promote women in increasing
numbers.
Sex Roles
Although empirical research supports Kanter’s gender hy-
pothesis (L. Cohen et al. 1998; Gauchat et al. 2012; Kmec and
Skaggs 2014; Stainback et al. 2016; Taylor 2010; Taylor et al.
2019a), researchers also find that Black men, Black women,
and White women experience different barriers to senior man-
agerial positions (Kurtulus and Tomaskovic-Devey 2012;
Ridgeway and Kricheli-Katz 2013; Wingfield 2009;
Wingfield and Wingfield 2014). For example, the processes
that benefit or bar White women from occupational attainment
or promotion may operate differently for Black women (Kalev
et al. 2006; Zeng 2011). Although greater proportions of
women in the management of an organization positively ben-
efit women’s chances of promotion, this is more so for White
women than women of other races/ethnicities (Kurtulus and
Tomaskovic-Devey 2012; Maume Jr. 2004). Black women
must work harder to receive the same evaluation as White
women (Bell and Nkomo 2001).
Barriers for Black men are likely different from those for
White women and Black women. For instance, Black men are
underrepresented in men-dominated workplaces but overrep-
resented in women-dominated workplaces (Woodhams et al.
2015; Yavorsky et al. 2016). Although there are some in-
stances where Black men benefit from the heightened visibil-
ity of their token status (Wingfield and Wingfield 2014), they
still face social closure in women-dominated workplaces, bar-
ring them from riding the glass escalator in similar ways as
White men (Wingfield 2009; Wingfield 2019; Woodhams
et al. 2015). In summary, although Kanter’s strength-in-
numbers theory of women’s access to workplace occupations
may explain White women’s lack of access to management
positions, this theory may not explain the barriers to manage-
ment positions that Black women and Black men experience.
If Kanter’s strength-in-numbers theory explains Black
women’s share of management, we might expect that in-
creases in women’s composition of non-management posi-
tions will be associated with greater percentages of women
in middle and senior management positions. We predict that
this effect will be larger among White women than among
Black women (Hypothesis 1a).
In contrast to Kanter’s strength-in-numbers gender theory,
race theorists believe that White workers may perceive grow-
ing numbers of racially marginalized people in their work-
place as a threat and/or as competition for resources
(Blalock 1956). Specifically, this line of theory predicts that
larger numbers of workers of marginalized racial or ethnic
identities leads the majority group (Whites) to feel threatened
and engage in exclusionary behaviors to maintain their access
to powerful positions (P. Cohen and Huffman 2007). For in-
stance, P. Cohen and Huffman (2007) find that Black workers
are less likely to be managers at workplaces located in labor
markets with more Black workers. Further, Ray (2019) theo-
rizes that Whiteness serves as a credential in hiring and pro-
motion and calls for future research to explore whether Whites
ride a “Jim Crow” escalator. Like men who ride a “glass
escalator” to senior management positions, Ray posits that
Whites may ride an escalator to the highest positions in work-
places dominated by People of Color.
Research that applies a threat or competition approach to
gender also finds some support (Reskin 1988). Men in orga-
nizations differentiate themselves by constructing “natural”
differences between themselves and women; they devalue
women and enact other exclusionary processes to prevent
women from “taking over” (Levine 2009; Prokos and
Padavic 2002; Reskin 1988). For example, pay gaps between
men and women scientists may be caused by gender segrega-
tion within the workplace (Prokos and Padavic 2002). Men
might hoard opportunities in workplaces or in specific occu-
pations within a workplace (Tilly 1998), which in turn, pro-
tects men’s dominance of certain industries (P. Cohen and
Huffman 2003; Williams et al. 2012). As Acker (2006b) ar-
gues, inequality regimes are often maintained when race and
gender inequalities are naturalized and legitimated in class
inequality. We often see this through stereotypes that certain
jobs, occupations, and industries are “naturally” related to
differently gendered and racialized workers or in notions that
“market forces” lead to inequality in jobs, occupations, and
industries.
It remains unclear how threat or competition might work at
the intersections of race and gender. Bell and Nkomo (2001)
argue that barriers facing Black women’s access to manage-
ment would be better conceptualized as a concrete wall topped
with a glass ceiling rather than just a glass ceiling. Whereas
White women in their study discussed unequal treatment
based on their gender, Black women discussed ways in which
both race and gender affected their experiences in the work-
place (Bell and Nkomo 2001). Research also shows the im-
portance of the intersection of race and gender for Black men.
For instance, although social capital is important for promo-
tions for other groups, it has limited influence on the career
advancement of Black men professionals (Johnson and Eby
2011).
In addition, whereas Black men hold more management
positions when compared to Black women (Maume Jr.
1999; Shams and Tomaskovic-Devey 2019), researchers also
find that Black men experience unique barriers based on the
intersection of race and gender (S. Collins 1997; Wingfield
2007, 2009; Wingfield and Wingfield 2014). For example,
Wingfield (2007, 2019) found that Black men face the stigma
of the “angry Black man” stereotype, whereas similarly asser-
tive behaviors may be viewed as evidence of leadership for
White men. These stereotypes, as well as Black men’s effort to
lessen the effect of stereotypes, may be one reason why Black
men are more likely than White men to work in women-
dominated occupations (Woodhams et al. 2015; Yavorsky
et al. 2016). In contrast to Kanter’s (1977) strength-in-
numbers theory, competition and threat theories hold that

Whites and men attempt to hoard their access to management
positions. If these theories explain racialized and gendered
inequality in workplaces’ share of management positions,
then we expect that increases in women’s composition of
non-management positions will be associated with lesser per-
centages of women in middle and senior management posi-
tions. The effect will be larger among Black women who may
present both a gendered and racialized threat (Hypothesis 1b).
Finally, a complementary set of studies (Carrington and
Troske 1995 P. Cohen and Huffman 2003; Smith 2002;
Smith and Elliott 2002; Stainback and Tomaskovic-Devey
2012) has found that women are more likely to supervise other
women, whereas racially marginalized workers are more like-
ly to supervise other racially marginalized workers, in a pro-
cess of “bottom-up ascription.” This process creates a “sex-
specific” or “race-specific” demand for managers to supervise
subordinates who are the same gender and race as employers,
suggesting that homosocial preferences lead to less conflict
between supervisors and workers when they share ascribed
characteristics (Smith 2002; Smith and Elliott 2002). We can
easily imagine this preference works similarly when you ex-
amine the intersections of race and gender, but there is little
literature to guide us in making an intersectional prediction.
Thus, we offer two exploratory and contradictory hypotheses
regarding intersectionality, bottom-up ascription, and inter-
sectional workers’ shares of management. First, we hypothe-
size that women will have the greatest share of management in
women-dominated industries, compared to gender-balanced
and men-dominated industries. The effect will be larger
a m on g W hi te wome n t ha n a mo ng Blac k w ome n
(Hypothesis 2a). In contrast, we hypothesize that women will
have lower shares of management in women-dominated in-
dustries compared to gender-balanced and men-dominated in-
dustries (Hypothesis 2b).
An intersectional framework can help us interrogate how
certain inequality regimes, such as strength-in-numbers or
threat and competition, operate for certain groups (Browne
and Misra 2003; Holvino 2010; McBride et al. 2015).
Additionally, intersectionality demonstrates how complicated
(and ever changing) social stereotypes apply to individuals of
multiple marginalized identities. These qualitatively unique
stereotypes may affect who is hired or promoted within an
organization in complicated ways (Browne and Misra 2003).
In sum, we expect the gender and race composition of work-
places to affect the gender and race composition of middle and
senior management within a workplace.
Workplace Characteristics
Beyond the race and gender composition of workplaces, other
characteristics of workplaces might affect gendered and racial-
ized inequality regimes, including workplace segregation and
Sex Roles
workplace formalization as well as if the workplace is a head-
quarters or federal government contractor. Although there is
little research that quantitatively examines the relationships
between workplaces characteristics and the intersections of
gender and race composition of management, there are litera-
tures that focus on gender or race that can be informative. A
substantial body of literature suggests that beyond the gender
composition of a workplace, the gender integration of occu-
pations in workplaces will lead to greater gender equality in
workplaces (for a review see Stainback and Tomaskovic-
Devey 2012, Taylor et al. 2019b). Less research has examined
how gender occupational segregation affects women’s share
of management (Taylor 2010; Taylor et al. 2019b).
Significantly, no known research has examined the possible
race and gender effects of gender segregation in workplaces.
Thus, we hypothesize that decreases in gender segregation in
non-management positions will be associated with greater
percentages of women in middle and senior management po-
sitions. The effect will be larger among White women than
among Black women (Hypothesis 3).
Additionally, gender segregation can be complicated when
combined with other workplace characteristics, such as status
as a federal contractor. Hirsh (2009) found that gender segre-
gation decreased more quickly in workplaces with federal
contracts than those without. Conversely, despite the
oversight and regulation associated with federal contracts,
race segregation was unaffected by whether the workplace
had a federal contract. Further, Kmec and Skaggs (2014) find
that the glass ceiling persists among federal contractors.
Federal contractors, according to Kmec and Skaggs, are no
more or less likely to promote women into middle manage-
ment positions, but they were less likely to promote women
into senior management. Shams and Tomaskovic-Devey
(2019) show a declining impact of federal contractor compli-
ance. In 1990, Black men and Black women held higher per-
centages of manager positions in workplaces that were federal
contractors. Whereas Black men’s representation in these
workplaces grew, Black women’s representation in manage-
ment fell between 1990 and 2005. Across this time period,
they find little change in White men’s or White women’s
management representation in workplaces that were federal
contractors. Despite changes to Black men’s and Black
women’s representations in management given a workplace’s
status as a federal contractor, no known studies examined
workers’ share of middle- and upper-level management given
a workplace’s status as a federal contractor.
Research shows workplace size (measured by number of
employees) is related to women’s opportunities for manage-
ment. Larger workplaces are more likely to have formalized
personnel systems and policies that may lessen discrimination,
but how these personnel systems and policies affect an indi-
viduals’ access to management may vary by the individual’s
race/ethnicity and gender (Huffman et al. 2010; Kalev et al.
Sex Roles
2006; Reskin and McBrier 2000; Stainback et al. 2016;
Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs 1999). As Acker (2006b)
rightly notes, diversity initiatives replacing Affirmative
Action programs may have weakened the effects of formali-
zation in disrupting inequality regimes. Using 2010 EEO-1
data, Kmec and Skaggs (2014) found that women were more
likely to be in lower management positions and less likely to
be in senior management if the workplace was a headquarters.
Headquarters are likely to have more managers and are work-
places in which formalized hiring and promotion procedures
are likely to be implemented. Kmec and Skaggs suggest that
women are more likely to gain middle management positions
in headquarters, but a more stringent glass ceiling protects the
most prestigious management positions (i.e., senior-level
management positions) for men in headquarters. Finally, some
research (S. Collins 1997) shows Black men are often hired as
the senior management of Human Resource departments and
or managers of departments charged with ensuring compli-
ance with federal Civil Rights legislation (S. Collins 1997).
Despite these findings, few studies have examined how the
size of a workplace and the workplace’s status as a headquar-
ters relates to racial and gender composition of the work-
place’s management positions.
Method
Data
We used the 2015 workplace data (EEO-1 reports) collected
by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). The EEOC requires all private sector firms with over
100 workers to file annual reports. Additionally, federal con-
tractors with more than 50 employees and those with federal
contracts worth more than $50,000 must file annual EEO-1
reports. Therefore, these data cover medium-to-large private-
sector employers. These employers were the primary target of
the equal employment provisions of Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act. In 2015, the Bureau of Labor Statistics esti-
mates more than 149 million people were employed in the
United States, while the EEOC documents the 52,214,000
employees who were reported in EE0–1 reports, representing
approximately 35% of people employed in the civilian labor
force. We exclude establishments with 24 or fewer employees
(6.6%) from the sample.
When required to submit an EEO-1 report, each workplace
must report their employment gender and racial/ethnicity
composition according to the worker’s gender and according
to seven race/ethnic (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/ Pacific
Islander, American Indian/ Alaskan Native, two or more
races) groups. These compositional counts are distributed
across ten occupational categories—senior officials and man-
agers, middle officials and managers, professionals,
technicians, sales workers, office and clerical workers, craft
workers, operatives, laborers, and service workers. EEO-1
reports also include information on the workplace’s parent
company, industry, and geographic location. From these data,
we were able to compute a number of compositional-based
variables that we discuss in the following (for more detail on
data, see Robinson et al. 2005; Tomaskovic-Devey et al.
2006).
We used the most recent data available, 2015, to analyze
current gender and race disparities in middle and senior man-
agement. The EEOC (2018, para. 78) defines middle-level
managers as those that “oversee and direct the delivery of
products, services or functions at group, regional or divisional
levels of organizations.” Middle-level managers serve under
executives and senior-level managers. Some examples of
middle-level managers are team managers, branch managers,
and storage and distribution managers. In contrast, senior-
level managers are “individuals who plan, direct and formu-
late policies, set strategy and provide the overall direction of
enterprises/organizations for the development and delivery of
products or services, within the parameters approved by
boards of directors or other governing bodies” (EEOC,
2018, para. 77). Examples of senior-level managers include
chief executive officers, chief operating officers, chief finan-
cial officers, and managing partners. In the present paper, we
examine factors related to the percentage of middle and senior
management that are White men, White women, Black men,
and Black women. Descriptive statistics for our sample are
reported in Table 1.
Prior research has been limited by the availability of
workplace-level data, which is why most researchers have
relied on Census-based occupational data. Theories about
composition, however, all have implications at the workplace
level. Workplaces respond to supply and demand in labor
markets in decisions over hiring. It is actors in workplaces
who make decisions negotiating the supply and demand of
workers, as well as the organizational dynamics that distribute
employees across occupations. The strength of the EEOC’s
EEO-1 report data is that they allowed us to explore compo-
sitional changes in occupations and workplaces, but especially
occupations within workplaces (Robinson et al. 2005;
Tomaskovic-Devey et al. 2006).
According to Robinson et al. (2005), the biggest weakness
of the dataset is that it does not include job-level data.
Additionally, because the unit of analysis in EEO-1 report data
is workplaces, we cannot predict why individual people are in
management positions. We can, however, examine the char-
acteristics of workplaces that have a greater or lesser share of
Black women, Black men, White women, and White men in
management positions. Thus, although we expand research by
examining middle and senior management within workplaces,
we do not have information on the skills, training, or tenure of
individual people. Nor do we have information about
 Sex Roles

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for study variables

Variable n M SD Minimum Maximum

% of non-management women 389,353 48.808 26.186 0.000 100.00

% White non-management 389,353 61.428 28.107 0.000 100.00
LN of % non-management Black 389,353 14.919 19.133 0.000 100.00
LN of % non-management Hispanic 389,353 15.806 21.087 0.000 100.00
LN of % non-management Asian 389,353 4.849 9.750 0.000 100.00
LN of non-management % other races 389,353 2.999 5.355 0.000 100.00
Men-dominated Sectors = 1 389,353 .263 .440 0.000 1.00
Gender-Balanced Sectors = 1 389,353 .501 .500 0.000 1.00
Gender Dissimilarity Index 389,353 29.470 23.605 0.000 100.00
Headquarters = 1 389,353 .0850 .279 0.000 1.00
Federal Contractor = 1 389,353 .535 .499 0.000 1.00
LN of Total Workplace Size 389,353 292.135 3,489.363 0.000 1,533,902
Total Middle Management 389,353 28.303 31.508 0.000 71,166
Total Senior Management 389,353 4.259 289.017 0.000 6,999.00

Data are collected from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015

individual workplace policies or practices regarding work-
place hiring, training, or promotion of workers. Further, the
EEO-1 data do not include public-sector workplaces.
Research shows that White women, Black women, and
Black men fare better in the public sector (Kaufman 2002).
In this sense, we are not capturing those advancements in our
analysis. Lastly, due to reporting requirements, our data only
include larger workplaces, which tend to have more formal-
ized hierarchies, and exclude smaller businesses, which are
more likely to be employee-owned. The social processes that
reproduce race and gender inequality may be different in
smaller businesses than large private-sector workplaces
(Carrington and Troske 1995; Sobering et al. 2014).
Measures
Dependent Variables
Our dependent variables are the Percent of Middle
Management and the Percent of Senior Management, first
held by men or women and then specifically for White wom-
en, Black women, White men, and Black men in workplaces.
We take women’s share of management as a proxy for prog-
ress in lessening inequality in workplaces. Except for the per-
centage of middle and senior level management positions held
by men and White men, which were not skewed, we took the
natural log of each of these variables to adjust for skewness.
Independent Variables
The first independent variable influencing women’s share of
management is the percentage of non-managerial employees
who are women. We follow Reskin and McBrier (2000) and
use the woman-composition of non-managers to represent the
internal pool of potential managers. Secondly, to examine
how the racial/ethnic make-up of workplaces is associated
with White men’s, White women’s, Black men’s, and Black
women’s percent of middle and senior management, we cre-
ated a series of variables measuring the racial composition of
percent of non-management workers. Specifically, we mea-
sured the percent of non-management that is Black, the per-
cent of non-management that is Hispanic, the percent of non-
management that is Asian, and the percent of non-
management that fell into any other race or ethnic category.
The percentage of non-management that is White is the refer-
ence category. We log these variables to account for skew-
ness. Although our focus in on predicting the share of man-
agement for White and Black women and men, we include all
racial groups in our analysis based on prior research showing
that the racial composition of workplaces is consequential for
workplace inequality (Tomaskovic-Devey et al. 2006;
Stainback and Tomaskovic-Devey 2012).
The EEOC uses the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) to separate workplaces into
industrial sector. Drawing from Kmec and Skaggs (2014),
we constructed a categorical measure to capture the institu-
tional effects of industry. To measure the gender composition
of industrial sectors, we created three dummy variables, men-
dominated sectors, gender-balanced sectors, and women-
dominated sectors (reference category). Men-dominated sec-
tors include agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing,
transport, and wholesale. Gender-balanced sectors include
waste administration, personal, producer and retail. The sole
women-dominated sector was social services, a category that
includes private-sector workplaces ranging from nursing and
residential care facilities to child and youth services.
Sex Roles
To measure gender occupational segregation within work-
places we used the index of dissimilarity (D) calculated for
non-managers only. This index measures the evenness of the
distribution of workers in a bounded area (in our analysis, it is
for non-managers in a workplace). Further, including the in-
dex in our models helps us potentially uncover unequal distri-
bution of women in occupations that might remain hidden if
we only examined non-managerial composition. D is calcu-
lated:
h  i was 61.83%, whereas White women’s share was 24.3%.
DNon−Managers in Workplace ¼ 100* :5 Σ│ððn1 =N 1 Þ−ðn2 =N 2 ÞÞ│
where n1 and n2 refer to the number of people who occupy
status groups 1 and 2 employed in each occupational group
and N1 and N2 refer to the number of people who occupy
status groups 1 and 2 employed by the whole workplace.
The index of dissimilarity ranges from 0 (total integration) to
100 (total segregation). The value of D represents the percent-
age of people who would have to change jobs to have equal
representation of men and women in a workplace. A value of
D = 50 would mean that half of non-managerial men or wom-
en in that workplace would have to change occupations for the
workplace to be completely integrated.
We also included control variables that measure the type
and size of workplace: federal contractor, headquarters, work-
place size, and the percent managers. Federal contractor is a
dummy variable, where a workplace is coded as 1 if they are a
federal contractor and 0 if they are not. The variable for head-
quarters is a categorical dummy variable where the workplace
is coded as 1 if it is a headquarters and 0 if it is not. Workplace
size is measured by number of employees in a workplace. This
variable is substantially skewed; therefore, we took the natural
log for our analysis. Lastly, we included continuous measures
for the size of middle management as well as size of senior
management (both as a percentage of total employment) in the
workplace.
Analytic Approach
We estimated linear regression analyses to conduct: (a) a gen-
der analysis to examine women’s and men’s share of manage-
ment and then (b) an intersectional analysis of White men’s,
Black men’s, White women’s, and Black women’s share of
management. Conducting the analysis in this way allows us to
compare the results between the two analyses in order to high-
light the intersectional nature of inequality regimes. We con-
ducted slope tests to determine if slopes are statistically sig-
nificantly different for all groups (results available in the on-
line supplement). Note for the slope tests comparing men ver-
sus women and Black men versus White men, we re-estimated
models without logging the dependent variables so that the
slopes would be comparable for the analysis.
Results
According to 2015 U.S. Census estimates, the United States’
population was 30.6% White men, 31.4% White women,
7.6% Black women, and 7% Black men. In workplaces
reporting to the EEOC in the same year, White men comprised
46.72%, White women 29.6%, Black women 3.81%, and
Black men 3.64% of middle level management. Within senior
management positions, White men’s share of management
Further, both Black women and Black men’s share of man-
agement was below 2% of all senior management positions.
Gender Analysis
Table 2 provides the regression analyses comparing women’s
and men’s percentage of management. Looking overall at the
table, most variables were similarly correlated with middle
management (see Table 2a) and senior management (see
Table 2b) within respective gender groups. The only excep-
tions were the percentage of non-management that is Hispanic
and the total number of management positions within a work-
place, which we discuss in more detail in the following.
The percentage of women in non-management positions
within workplaces was associated with higher percentages of
women in management and a lower percentage of men in
management (see Table 2). Specifically, as the percentage of
women workers who were not managers increased within a
workplace, the percentage of women in middle management
and senior management increased, where men’s management
decreased. Additionally, women’s percentage of management
decreased in men-dominated or gender-balanced sectors,
compared to women-dominated sectors. Accordingly, work-
places in industries that are men-dominated or gender-
balanced were associated with higher percentages of men in
management. Further, as gender segregation increased in a
workplace, women’s percentage of middle and senior man-
agement decreased, where the percentage of men in manage-
ment increased.
Looking at variables measuring the percentage of different
racial and ethnic groups that are not management workers,
increases in Black and Asian workers were associated with
more women in middle management and increases in
Hispanic and other races were associated with less women
in middle management, when compared to White worker
(see Table 2a). In contrast, increases in the percentage of
Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other workers were all associated
with increases in women in senior management. Among men,
workplaces with higher Hispanic non-management and fewer
Black or other race groups were associated with more men in
middle management. In terms of higher management, work-
places with more Black, Hispanic, and other race groups were
associated with fewer men (see Table 2b). In short, compared
 Sex Roles

Table 2 Ordinary least squares predicting men and Women’s percentage of middle and senior management

(a) Middle Management (b) Senior Management

Women Men Women Men

B B B B

(Constant) −6.580** 50.491** −8.604** 67.218**

% of non-management women .070** −.461** .072** −.372**
LN of % non-management Black .024** −.087** .018** −.261**
LN of % non-management Hispanic −.001 .034** .021** −.007
LN of % non-management Asian .052** .034** .031** .225**
LN of % non-management other races −.004* −.016* .010** −.115**
Men-dominated Sectorsa = 1 −.668** 22.472** −3.035** 12.475**
Gender-Balanced Sectorsa = 1 −.333** 7.770** −.969** 5.184**
Gender Dissimilarity Index −.027** .117** −.019** .175**
Headquartersb = 1 1.514** −5.547** 2.795** −1.520**
Federal Contractorc = 1 .118** 1.194** .002 .160
LN of Total Workplace Size 1.081** 2.469** .879** 1.360**
Total Middle Management −.001** −8.617E-05 – –
Total Senior Management – – .007** −.002
Adj. R2 .209 .2356 .216 .215

Data are collected from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015. Coefficients are unstandardized betas (B)
a
Women-dominated sectors is the reference category; b Non-headquarters is the reference category; c Workplaces that are not government contractors is
the reference category. *p < .05. **p < .01

to workplaces that have more White non-management, in-
creases in People of Color were associated with more women
and fewer men in the highest levels of management, with the
exception of increases in Asian non-management workers and
men’s access to senior management positions.
Next, workplaces that are headquarters were associated
with increases in the percentage of women in middle and
senior management and lower percentages of men in middle
management (see Table 2). Workplaces that are federal con-
tractors were correlated with increases in women’s percentage
of middle management (see Table 2a), but they were not as-
sociated with senior management for women or any manage-
ment among men (see Table 2b). Whereas the total number of
middle management positions was negatively associated with
women’s percentage of middle management, the total number
of management positions was associated with increases in
senior management. Increasing numbers of positions available
seemed to disadvantage women’s chances for middle manage-
ment, but advantaged them for senior management. For men,
total middle management failed to reach significance, and
total senior management was negatively associated with ac-
cess to senior management.
Intersectional Analysis
Next, we turn to Table 3, which presents the regression results
for the four race and gender categories. Looking first at the
results for women (see Table 3a), note that the adjusted R2
drops significantly when examining Black women’s percent-
age of senior management, suggesting that the independent
and control variables do a poor job at explaining the percent-
age of Black women’s senior management (10%). The incred-
ibly stark underrepresentation of Black women in senior man-
agement positions we discussed previously may help account
for this disparity.
Overall, the direction of the relationship for variables
that measure women’s composition and integration within
workplaces were the same for both White and Black
women’s percentage of middle and senior management.
We proposed two competing hypotheses regarding the ef-
fect of women’s non-management representation on man-
agement: Hypothesis 1a drawing from Kanter’s (1977) con-
cept of homophily/strength in number and Hypothesis 1b
drawing from theories of threat. The results are consistent
with Hypothesis 1a. As the percentage of workers in non-
management that are women increased, so did White and
Black women’s percentage of both types of management.
Additionally, slope tests indicate that the association was
greater among White women than Black women (t = 13.20,
p < .001 for middle management and t = 39.29, p < .001 for
senior management).
Our second set of competing hypotheses also drew from
the concepts of homophily (Hypothesis 2a) and threat
(Hypothesis 2b) to predict the relationship between industrial
Sex Roles

Table 3 Ordinary least squares models predicting percentage of management

(a) Women (b) Men

Middle Management Senior Management Middle Management Senior Management

White Black White Black White Black White Black

Women Women Women Women Men Men Men Men
B B B B B B B B

(Constant) −10.631** −17.269** −10.662** −12.769** 53.829** −15.747** 59.702** −13.137**

% of non-management women .067** .041** .070** .016** −.583** −.017** −.420** .002**
LN of % non-management Black −.014** .238** .010** .075** −.233** .246** −.147** .064**
LN of % non-management Hispanic −.107** −.030** −.027** .001 −.692** −.011** −.470** −.001
LN of % non-management Asian .039** .015** .017** −.004* −1.810** .007** −.102** .003
LN of % non-management other .003 −.019** .012** −.008** −.031** −.013** −0.103** −.010**
races
Men-dominated Sectorsa = 1 −.655** −.019** −2.738** −.384** 9.934** .657** 9.542** −.208**
Gender-Balanced Sectorsa = 1 −.460** −.190** −.874** −.118** 3.489** .372** 3.641** .085**
Gender Dissimilarity Index −.013** −.010** −.011** −.005** .095** −.012** .163** −.006**
Headquartersb = 1 2.039** .454** 2.872** .307** −.694** −.047 .874** .328**
Federal Contractorc = 1 .236** .381** .061 .101** .969** .296** .684* .110**
LN of Total Workplace Size 1.685** 1.502** 1.097** .303** 2.354** 1.757** 2.671** .507**
Total Middle Management −.001** .0004** – – −.001 .0002** – –
Total Senior Management – – .008** .011** – – −.012** .012**
Adj. R2 .179 .182 .199 .084 .345 .161 .202 .077

Data are collected from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015. Coefficients are unstandardized betas (B)
a
Women-dominated sectors is the reference category; b Non-headquarters is the reference category; c Workplaces that are not government contractors is
the reference category
*p < .05. **p < .01

sector and management. The results of industrial sector also
support Kanter’s (1977) theory. White and Black women were
both more likely to be managers in women-dominated sectors
as opposed to men-dominated or gender-balanced. Further,
slope tests showed that the association is larger among
White women than Black women. For middle management,
t = 3.37 for man-dominated and t = 7.35 for gender-balanced
sectors, both with p-values less than .001. When predicting
senior management, the slope tests resulted in a t-score of
19.71 for man-dominated and t = 11.98 for gender-balanced
sectors (p < .001).
Our final hypothesis predicted that gender segregation in
non-management occupations in workplaces will be associat-
ed with greater percentages of women in middle and senior
management positions and that the effect will be larger among
White women than among Black women. The percentage of
Black and White women’s middle and senior management
was negatively associated with gender segregation. In this
slope test comparison, we did not find a statistically significant
difference between the size of the effect for Black versus
White women (t = 1.54, p = .063).
Although we did not have formal hypotheses regarding
other workplace characteristics variables, the results of the
exploratory analyses offer important insight into the intersec-
tional nature of gender and race. The variables measuring
racial and ethnic make-up of non-manager workers affected
management differently for White and Black women. In
terms of middle management, increases in Black non-
management workers were associated with fewer White
women in middle management and more Black women in
middle management. For both White and Black women, in-
creases in more Hispanic workers were associated with de-
creases in middle management positions and increases in
Asian workers were associated with an increase in middle
management positions. Increases in other race groups were
negatively associated with the percentage of Black women in
middle management and not statistically significant among
White women. Except for increases in Hispanic non-man-
agement, workplaces with higher numbers of People of
Color were associated with more White women in senior
management positions. In contrast, increases in Black
women’s share of senior management was only associated
with increases in Black workers who were not management.
In other words, White women were more likely to manage all
Workers of Color, whereas Black women were only more
likely to manage Black workers.

Looking next at whether the workplace is a headquarters or
a federal contractor, both White and Black women had higher
percentages of middle and senior management in workplaces
that are headquarters versus those that are not headquarters.
The workplace’s status as a federal contractor affected White
and Black women’s management differently. Black women’s
percentage of both middle and senior management were pos-
itively associated with the workplace being a federal contrac-
tor. For White women, the workplace’s status as a federal
contract were only associated with White women’s increases
in middle management and failed to reach statistical signifi-
cance when predicting White women’s share of senior man-
agement. Lastly, we turn to the effects of total management
positions within workplaces. The total number of middle man-
agement positions was negatively associated with White
women’s percentage of middle management but positively
associated with Black women’s middle management. In con-
trast, increases in senior management positions were positive-
ly associated with both White women’s and Black women’s
percentages of senior management.
Turning next to the results for men (see Table 3b), similar
to the models examining women’s management, the adjusted
R2 dropped to only .081 for Black men’s percentage of senior
management, suggesting that the variables only explained
about 8% of the variation in the percentage of senior manage-
ment that is composed of Black men. It may be that the var-
iables associated with White men’s senior management are
not the same as those associated with Black men’s senior
management. Alternatively, this finding may reflect the small
percentage of workplaces in which Black men were in senior
management positions in 2015.
The percent of women workers who are not managers was
negatively associated with both White and Black men’s per-
centage of middle management and White men’s percentage
of senior management. In contrast, Black men’s percentage of
senior management was positively associated with the per-
centage of women workers. Whether or not sectors are men-
dominated, gender-balanced, or women-dominated also illus-
trates an interesting difference between White and Black
men’s management. Whereas both White and Black men
had higher percentages of middle management in workplaces
that are men-dominated or gender-balanced compared to
women-dominated, the results do not hold for senior manage-
ment. Black men’s percentage of senior management was
smaller in men-dominated sectors compared to women-
dominated sectors. In contrast, Black men’s share of senior
management was positively associated with gender-balanced
compared to women-dominated sectors. White men’s share of
senior management remained positively associated with men-
dominated and gender-balanced sectors compared to women-
dominated. Gender segregation also influenced White and
Black men’s percentage of management differently. As firms
became more segregated, White men’s percentage of middle
Sex Roles
and senior management increased whereas Black men’s per-
centage of middle and senior management decreased. Taken
together, these models suggest that Black men benefit from
workplaces being gender-diverse, whereas White men main-
tain advantages in workplaces that remain men-dominated
and highly gender-segregated.
White men’s percentage of middle management was neg-
atively associated with workplaces being headquarters.
Whether or not the workplace was a headquarter had no sta-
tistically significant association with Black men’s share of
middle management. In contrast, both Black and White men
held more senior management positions in workplaces that
were headquarters. Additionally, both White and Black men
had higher percentages of middle and senior management in
workplaces that are federal contractors versus those that are
not.
Looking at total management positions, White men’s share
of middle management was negatively associated with the
total number of middle management positions in a workplace,
and their percentage of senior management was also negative-
ly associated with increases in the number of senior manage-
ment positions in the firm. In contrast, Black men’s percent-
age of middle and senior management were both positively
associated with increases in middle and senior management
positions. Finally, total workplace size was positive across all
models for White men, Black men, White women, and Black
women (see Table 3).
Discussion
In 2015, some 41 years after passage of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act in the United States, we find that White men made
up 47% of middle management and 62% of senior manage-
ment in private-sector workplaces that are required to report to
the EEOC. Although still underrepresented, White women
have larger shares of management relative to Black men and
Black women. White women occupied 30% of middle man-
agement and 24% of senior management positions in 2015.
Strikingly, Black women and Black men each composed less
than 4% of middle management and less than 2% of senior
management. These findings give credence to the argument
that Black women face a concrete wall leading up to the glass
ceiling (Bell and Nkomo 2001). Similarly, Black men face
stark barriers to middle and senior management positions.
Although the shares of management may be similar for
Black women and Black men, our analysis suggests that the
inequality regimes (Acker 2009) that lead to this outcome are
intersectionally situated (Yuval-Davis 2015).
The few Black women and Black men who can scale the
concrete wall and crack the glass ceiling do not always do so
in similar workplaces. The type of workplace in which Black
women have greater shares of management is one with more
Sex Roles
women, less gender segregation, and more Black non-
managerial employees. Increases in Black non-management
employees are also associated with more Black women hold-
ing senior management positions. Contrastingly, an increase
in non-management workers who are Black, Asian, and other
races are associated with more White women in senior man-
agement. Black men had greater shares of middle manage-
ment in workplaces with more men, more Black employees,
in men-dominated sectors, and in workplaces with less gender
occupational segregation. Black men also had higher shares of
senior management in workplaces with more women and less
gender segregation. Additionally, Black men had higher
shares of senior management in gender-balanced and
women-dominated than men-dominated industrial sectors.
Kanter’s (1977) strength-in-numbers theory needs to be
interpreted as both racialized and gendered; Black women
and Black men do not benefit to the same extent as White
women by more women or racially and ethnically marginal-
ized groups. Our findings suggest that inequality regimes
shaping the glass ceiling for Black women’s share of middle
and senior management more closely follow a process in
which managers look like the non-management employees
in a workplace. Thus, our results are consistent with Elliott
and Smith (2001) who find that Black men, all women, and
other men of marginalized racial identities benefit from bot-
tom-up ascription, a process in which managers look like the
non-management employees in a workplace. Additionally,
our findings lend some empirical credence to Ray’s (2019,
p. 31) hypothesis, at least for White women, that White people
ride a “Jim Crow” escalator to management positions in work-
places dominated People of Color. Future research should
explore these findings and the Jim Crow escalator further.
Our findings do point to similar racialized processes because
we find that both Black men and Black women benefit from
increases in the number of management positions available in
a workplace. Social closure likely increases because White
men are more likely to protect and fill management seats as
the total number of management positions decrease.
Our findings are also consistent with research which finds
that Black men may enter women-dominated industries
through a “trap door” where other factors bar their entry into
men-dominated industries (Roos and Stevens 2018; see also
Yavorsky et al. 2016). This trap door does not exempt Black
men from gendered and racialized discrimination in women-
dominated or gender-balanced workplaces. In Wingfield’s
(2009) interviews with Black men in a women-dominated
field (nursing), Black men reported facing barriers to promo-
tion because of exclusion by women co-workers and men
bosses. Wingfield’s (2019) more recent research on Black
healthcare professionals shows little progress in the gendered
and racialized experiences of these workers.
It may be that Black men who attain senior managerial
positions in women-dominated workplaces are experiencing
token status which offers potential advantages, as well as def-
inite disadvantages, in the same ways identified by
Wingfield’s (2009) participants in men-dominated jobs.
Similarly, S. Collins (1997) found that Black men were hired
as top-level executives of many company’s affirmative action
committee or community relations board to comply with new
EEOC laws. Despite Black men’s gains of status and pay,
Black men in these positions reported limited opportunities
for career advancement, and many held jobs with little power.
Unfortunately, our data do not allow us to determine the
amount of power held by managers.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Drawing from classic intersectionality theory calling for re-
search to highlight the experiences of Black women
(Crenshaw 1989), we chose to construct a comparative inter-
sectional study exploring Black women’s, White women’s,
Black men’s, and White men’s shares of management.
Although we demonstrate that Black men and Black women
have unique experiences with inequality in private-sector EEO-
1 reporting workplaces, our study cannot determine the possible
interpersonal processes occurring that bar Black men and Black
women from management positions. Thus, future research,
similar to Wingfield’s (2009, 2019), should continue to quali-
tatively examine the perceptions and experiences of Black
men’s and Black women’s experiences within workplaces.
Future research should also examine the ways in which
gender intersects with other racial and ethnic groups. For in-
stance, research should continue to explore whether a “bam-
boo ceiling” restricts Asian women’s access to management
(Hyun 2005) and the ways that racialized and gendered social
processes affect Latina women’s careers (Hite 2007). The data
collected by the EEOC for the EEO-1 reports also precludes
our ability to analyze additional intersecting inequalities, such
as sexuality, disability or age. Intersectional scholars argue the
importance of these other axis of oppression in addition to race
and gender (P. Collins 2019) including disability, sexuality,
and age. For instance, Woodhams et al. (2015) found that
disability and ethnicity affect the likelihood that men will ben-
efit from a glass escalator in women-dominated jobs.
Researchers should continue to examine how workers of mul-
tiple marginalized identities experience unique barriers to pro-
motion within workplaces.
Practice Implications
Our research demonstrates that formalized policies and stron-
ger regulatory oversight may disrupt inequality regimes
(Acker 2006b, 2009) that result in differential shares of man-
agement. Consistent with prior research, our findings indicate
that workplace size is positively associated with all men’s and
women’s shares of management (Kalev et al. 2006; Reskin

and McBrier 2000; Stainback et al. 2016; Tomaskovic-Devey
and Skaggs 1999). This finding lends some support to the idea
that formalization increases all marginalized peoples’ share of
management. We also found that a workplace being a head-
quarters is associated with greater shares of middle- and
senior-level management for Black and White women, but it
varies for Black men (greater shares of senior management,
but lower shares of middle-management).
Lastly, like Kmec and Skaggs (2014), we find that Black
women and Black men have larger shares of middle and se-
nior management in federal contracting workplaces and that
White women have a greater share of middle management in
federal contracting workplaces. Although prior research has
shown a decrease in Black women’s management in these
types of workplaces across time (Shams and Tomaskovic-
Devey 2019), our research suggests that workplaces with fed-
eral contracts remain workplaces where Black women and
Black men have greater shares of management. Our result
may speak to the importance of EEOC oversight and human
resource formalization. Additional EEOC oversight across
non-federal contractor workplaces and greater formalization
of workplace hiring and promoting practices may be critical to
reduce the persistent, substantial under-representation in man-
agement experienced by Black women and Black men.
Conclusion
With our research, we add to the intersectional workplace
literature (Wingfield 2009; Yavorsky et al. 2016) by examin-
ing how the composition and characteristics of U.S. work-
places advantage and disadvantage White women, Black
women, and Black men in different ways. Intersectional work-
place literature argues that ignoring race when studying gen-
der in labor outcomes provides an incomplete picture that may
result in merely describing the experiences of White women.
Similarly, ignoring gender when examining race in labor out-
comes may result in merely describing the experiences of
Black men (Browne and Misra 2003; McBride et al. 2015).
Our analysis suggests that looking solely at “women” leads to
conclusions that do not accurately explain Black women’s—
or White women’s—access to management. We find that
workplace characteristics associated with higher shares of
management are different for racial/gender groups when
predicting middle- versus senior-management. Scholars have
argued that institutions are gendered (Acker 2006b) and ra-
cialized (Ray 2019; Wingfield 2009). Our results support both
conclusions. Private workplace composition is guided by
intersectionally situated conditions and social processes in
which gender influences the racialized structure and vice
versa. Understanding how workplaces are simultaneously ra-
cialized and gendered will help create policy that can disrupt
inequality without reinforcing inequality on different axes of
oppression.
Sex Roles
Acknowledgements Tiffany Taylor has access to EEOC data through a
government Interpersonal Act agreement with the EEOC.
Author’s Contribution Finally, the authors assert that all data, methods,
citations, and analyses are reported truthfully and in good faith. In addi-
tion, all individuals who wrote sentences, presented portions, or analyzed
data presented in this paper are represented as authors.
Funding Information We have not received any funding for this research.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical Standard This article does not use original data. All data ana-
lyzed were collected by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission
and analyzed by the second author, who is a contractor of the EEOC and
legally allowed to analyze EEOC data.
Conflict of Interest The authors declares that they do not have any
conflicts of interest.
References
Acker, J. (2006a). Class questions: Feminist answers. Lanham: AltaMira
Press.
Acker, J. (2006b). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organi-
zations. Gender & Society, 20, 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0891243206289499.
Acker, J. (2009). From glass ceiling to inequality regimes. Sociologie du
Travail, 51, 199–217. https://doi.org/10.4000/sdt.16407.
Bell, E. L. J. E., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways: Black and
white women and the struggle for professional identity. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Blalock, H. M. (1956). Economic discrimination and negro increase.
American Sociological Review, 21, 584–588. https://doi.org/10.
2307/2089093.
Britton, D. M. (1997). Gendered organizational logic: Policy and practice
in men’s and women’s prisons. Gender & Society, 11, 796–818.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089124397011006005.
Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the
labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100016.
Carrington, W. J., & Troske, K. R. (1995). Gender segregation in small
firms. Journal of Human Resources, 30, 503–533. https://doi.org/
10.2307/146033.
Cohen, L. E., Broschak, J. P., & Haveman, H. A. (1998). And then there
were more? The effect of organizational sex composition on the
hiring and promotion of managers. American Sociological Review,
63, 711–727. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657335.
Cohen, P. N., & Huffman, M. L. (2003). Occupational segregation and
the devaluation of women’s work across U.S. labor markets. Social
Forces, 81, 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0027.
Cohen, P. N., & Huffman, M. L. (2007). Black underrepresentation in
management across U.S. labor markets. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 609, 181–199. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0002716206296734.
Collins, P. H. (2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Collins, P. H., Simpson, A. Y., & Eschle, C. (2000). Black feminist
thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment (10th anniversary edition). New York: Routledge.
Sex Roles
Collins, S. M. (1997). Black corporate executives: The making and
breaking of a black middle class. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The
glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80, 655–681. https://doi.org/10.
1353/sof.2001.0091.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A
black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theo-
ry and antiracist politics. In University of Chicago Legal Forum,
140, 139–167. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500480-5.
DiTomaso, N. (1989). Sexuality in the workplace: Discrimination and
harassment. In J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, & P. Tancred-Sheriff
(Eds.), The sexuality of organization (pp. 71–90). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, Inc..
Elliott, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (2001). Ethnic matching of supervisors to
subordinate work groups: Findings on ‘bottom-up’ ascription and
social closure. Social Problems, 48, 258–276. https://doi.org/10.
1525/sp.2001.48.2.258.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2018, March). EEO-1 in-
struction booklet. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-survey/eeo-
1-instruction-booklet?renderforprint=1Accessed 19 May 2020.
Johnson, C. D., & Eby, L. T. (2011). Evaluating career success of African
American males: It’s what you know and who you are that matters.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 699–709. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jvb.2011.03.021.
Gauchat, G., Kelly, M., & Wallace, M. (2012). Occupational gender
segregation, globalization, and gender earnings inequality in U.S.
metropolitan areas. Gender & Society, 26, 718–747. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0891243212453647.
Hirsh, C. E. (2009). The strength of weak enforcement: The impact of
discrimination charges, legal environments, and organizational con-
ditions on workplace segregation. American Sociological Review,
74, 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400205.
Hite, L. M. (2007). Hispanic women managers and professionals:
Reflections on life and work. Gender, Work and Organization,
14(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00330.x.
Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J. (2010). Engendering
change: Organizational dynamics and workplace gender desegrega-
tion, 1975-2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 255–277.
https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.255.
Holvino, E. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and
class in organization studies. Gender, Work and Organization, 17,
248–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00400.x.
Hyun, J. (2005). Breaking the bamboo ceiling: Career strategies for
Asians. New York: Harper Business.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses?
Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity
policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617. https://doi.
org/10.1177/000312240607100404.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York:
Basic Books.
Kaufman, R. L. (2002). Assessing alternative perspectives on race and
sex employment segregation. American Sociological Review, 67,
547–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088945.
Kmec, J. A., & Skaggs, S. L. (2014). The “state” of equal employment
opportunity law and managerial gender diversity. Social Problems,
61, 530–558. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2014.12319.
Kurtulus, F. A., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012). Do female top man-
agers help women to advance? A panel study using EEO-1 records.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
639, 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211418445.
Levine, J. A. (2009). It’s a man’s job, or so they say: The maintenance of
sex segregation in a manufacturing plant. Sociological Quarterly,
50, 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01140.x.
Maume Jr., D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational
segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions.
Work and Occupations, 26, 483–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0730888499026004005.
Maume Jr., D. J. (2004). Is the glass ceiling a unique form of inequality?
Evidence from a random-effects model of managerial attainment.
Work and Occupations, 31, 250–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0730888404263908.
McBride, A., Hebson, G., & Holgate, J. (2015). Intersectionality: Are we
taking enough notice in the field of work and employment relations?
Work, Employment and Society, 29, 331–341. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0950017014538337.
McCall, L. (2001). Complex inequality: Gender, race, and class in the
new economy. New York: Routledge.
Prokos, A., & Padavic, I. (2002). ‘There oughtta be a law against bitches’:
Masculinity lessons in police academy training. Gender, Work and
Organization, 9, 439–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.
00168.
Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American
Sociological Review, 84, 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0003122418822335.
Reskin, B. F. (1988). Bringing the men back in: Sex differentiation and
the devaluation of women’s work. Gender & Society, 2, 58–81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002001005.
Reskin, B. F., & McBrier, D. B. (2000). Why not ascription?
Organizations’ employment of male and female managers.
American Sociological Review, 65, 210–233. https://doi.org/10.
2307/2657438.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Kricheli-Katz, T. (2013). Intersecting cultural beliefs
in social relations: Gender, race, and class binds and freedoms.
Gender & Society, 27, 294–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0891243213479445.
Robinson, C. L., Taylor, T., Tomaskovic-Devey, T., Zimmer, C., & Irvin
Jr., M. W. (2005). Studying race or ethnic and sex segregation at the
establishment level: Methodological issues and substantive oppor-
tunities using EEO-1 reports. Work & Occupations, 32, 5–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888404272008.
Roos, P., & Stevens, L. M. (2018). Integrating occupations: Changing
occupational sex segregation in the United States from 2000-2014.
Demographic Research, 38, 127–154. https://doi.org/10.4054/
demres.2018.38.5.
Shams, S., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2019). Racial and gender trends
and trajectories in access to managerial jobs. Social Science
Research, 80, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.
020.
Smith, R. A. (2002). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace:
Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 509–
542. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141048.
Smith, R. A., & Elliott, J. R. (2002). Does ethnic concentration influence
employees' access to authority? An examination of contemporary
urban labor markets. Social Forces, 81(1), 255–279. https://doi.
org/10.1353/sof.2002.0062.
Sobering, K., Thomas, J., & Williams, C. L. (2014). Gender in/equality in
worker-owned businesses. Sociology Compass, 8, 1242–1255.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12208.
Stainback, K., Kleiner, S., & Skaggs, S. (2016). Women in power:
Undoing or redoing the gendered organization? Gender & Society,
30, 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215602906.
Stainback, K., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012). Documenting desegre-
gation: Racial and gender segregation in private sector employment
since the civil rights act. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Taylor, T. (2010). Supply, demand, and organizational processes:
Changes in Women’s share of Management in United States
Workplaces, 1966–2000. Advances in Gender Research, 14, 167–
188. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1529-2126(2010)0000014011.

Taylor, T., Buck, A., Bloch, K. R., & Turgeon, B. (2019a). Gender
composition and share of management: Tipping points in US work-
places, 1980–2005. The Social Science Journal, 56(1), 48–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.07.005.
Taylor, T., Turgeon, B., Buck, A., Bloch, K., & Church, J. (2019b).
Spatial variation in US labor markets and workplace gender segre-
gation: 1980–2005. Sociological Inquiry, 89(4), 703–726. https://
doi.org/10.1111/soin.12279.
Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Skaggs, S. (1999). Degendered jobs?
Organizational processes and gender segregated employment.
Research in Social Stratification & Mobility, 17, 139–172 https://
www.sciencedirect.com/journal/research-in-social-stratification-
and-mobility.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Zimmer, C., Stainback, K., Robinson, C. L.,
Taylor, T., & McTague, T. (2006). Documenting desegregation:
EEO-1 estimates of U.S. gender and ethnic segregation 1966–
2000. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 565–588. https://doi.
org/10.1177/000312240607100403.
Williams, C. L. (1995). Still a man's world: Men who do women's work.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Williams, C. L. (2013). The glass escalator, revisited: Gender inequality
in neoliberal times, SWS feminist lecturer. Gender & Society, 27,
609–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213490232.
Williams, C. L., Muller, C., & Kilanski, K. (2012). Gendered organiza-
tions in the new economy. Gender & Society, 26, 549–573. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0891243212445466.
Wingfield, A. H. (2007). The modern mammy and the angry black man:
African American professionals’ experiences with gendered racism
Sex Roles
in the workplace. Race, Gender & Class, 14, 196–212 https://www.
jstor.org/stable/41675204. Accessed 8 Aug 2019.
Wingfield, A. H. (2009). Racializing the glass elevator: Reconsidering
men’s experiences with women’s work. Gender & Society, 23, 5–
26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208323054.
Wingfield, A. H. (2019). Flatlining: Race, work, and health care in the
new economy. Oakland: University of California Press.
Wingfield, A. H., & Wingfield, J. H. (2014). When visibility hurts and
helps: How intersections of race and gender shape black profession-
al men’s experiences with tokenization. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0035761.
Woodhams, C., Lupton, B., & Cowling, M. (2015). The presence of
ethnic minority and disabled men in feminised work:
Intersectionality, vertical segregation and the glass escalator. Sex
Roles, 72(7–8), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-
0427-z.
Yavorsky, J. E., Cohen, P. N., & Qian, Y. (2016). Man up, man down:
Race-ethnicity and the hierarchy of men in female-dominated work.
Sociological Quarterly, 57, 733–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/tsq.
12152.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2015). Situated intersectionality and social inequality.
Raison Politiques, 58, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.058.
0091.
Zeng, Z. (2011). The myth of the glass ceiling: Evidence from a stock-
flow analysis of authority attainment. Social Science Research, 40,
312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.012.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.