Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
DOI 10.1007/s11199-006-9091-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
How We Define Success: A Qualitative Study
of What Matters Most to Women and Men
Lorraine S. Dyke & Steven A. Murphy
Published online: 21 November 2006
# Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006
Abstract In this article we explore how women and men
define success and how their definition of success affects
their career progress. Qualitative analysis of data from 40
interviews with successful women and men suggest that
gender differences do exist. Women highlight the impor-
tance of balance and relationships. Men focus more on
material success. Similar numbers of women and men
thought that their definitions of success had limited their
career progress, but the tradeoffs they reported making
were distinctly different. Our results suggest that gender
differences in the meaning of success exist even when
occupational attainments are similar.
Keywords Gender . Success . Careers . Trade-offs
“What the woman who labors wants is the right to live,
not simply exist...The worker must have bread, but she
must have roses, too” (Schneiderman, 1912, as cited in
Eisenstein, 1983, p. 32). In 1912, this was the rallying cry
of striking women mill workers who wanted more from life
than a pay cheque. It is a sentiment echoed by many
women and men today. A number of authors have argued,
however, that women are more likely than men to define
success in terms beyond wealth and status, and to include
concerns about relationships and balance in a more
This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council and the Office of Research Services, Carleton
University. We wish to thank Michelle Kealey, Siobhan MacDonald,
Sheona McGraw, and Shirley McKey for their capable research
assistance.
L. S. Dyke (*) : S. A. Murphy
Eric Sprott School of Business, Carleton University,
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1S 5B6
e-mail: lorraine_dyke@carleton.ca
personal, multidimensional definition of success (Gallos,
1989; Gordon, 1991; O’Toole, 1993; Sturges, 1999). In this
article we examine these claims based on 40 in-depth
interviews with women and men who talked about what
success means to them.
Gender differences in how we define success may help to
account for the different attainments of women and men in
our society. How we define success has a significant impact
on a myriad of choices in both our personal and professional
lives. Our definitions of success can affect our educational
choices, choice of employer, work involvement, career
attainment, financial resources, relationships, family com-
mitment, and life satisfaction. On traditional yardsticks of
success, such as wealth, power, and prestige, women lag
behind men. Yet in measuring women according to these
traditional yardsticks of success we may, as Gordon (1991)
argued, be holding women “prisoners of men’s dreams”
(p. 3). If organizations are to provide equal opportunities for
women and men to realize their dreams, we need to better
understand what success means to both women and men.
The Literature on Gender and the Meaning of Success
Although success originally referred to any positive
outcome, it has become increasingly associated with wealth
and prestige (Oxford English Dictionary, 1971). This defi-
nition of success is considered by many to be more con-
sistent with masculine socialization (Deutschendorf, 1996;
Doyle, 1983). Men traditionally have been expected to be
the providers for their families. The roots of these role
expectations can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution
(Deutschendorf, 1996). The breadwinner role continues to
be central to the definition of masculinity (Faludi, 1991). In
his book The Limits of Masculinity, Tolson (1977) argued
358
that the breadwinner role is so fundamental to men’s identity
that it shapes their physical energies, their sexuality, and
even their nervous system. More recent research (e.g.,
Deutsch & Saxon, 1998; Zuo, 1997) supports the classic
work of Wilkie (1993) who found that, although the
younger generation of men tend to be more accepting of
women’s work roles, they are reluctant to accept women’s
role as co-provider, which suggests that the role of family
breadwinner is still strongly ingrained in men’s self-identity.
Early socialization experiences are critical to the forma-
tion of gender-based values. Recent evidence (see Karniol,
Grosz, & Schorr, 2003; Polce-Lynch, Myers, Kilmartin,
Forssmann-Falck, & Kliewer, 1998) suggests that boys are
continuing to be socialized in their formative years to be
more agentic than are girls. These values continue into
adulthood (Cooper, Arkkelin, & Tiebert, 1994; Di Dio,
Saragovi, & Koestner, 1996; McCreary, Newcomb, &
Sadava, 1998.) In fact, in a cross-cultural study, Doss and
Hopkins (1998) found that two components of men’s self-
perceptions were consistent across cultures: hypermasculine
posturing and achievement. Both of these constructs
include stereotypical masculine values of being tough,
confident, competitive, and protective of family (in both a
monetary and physical sense). Such limitations on what it
means to be a man have a lasting impact on men’s psyches.
With the provider role so central to the definition of
masculinity, it would not be surprising if masculine defi-
nitions of success centred on the provision of material
goods. In his book, The Male Experience, Doyle (1983)
described the traditional view that “the more goods a male
provides for his family’s material well-being, the more
successful (that is, masculine) he is” (p. 168). Doyle argued
further that the drive of men to succeed in the material realm
has been played out in the context of a competition for a
fixed supply of these goods—a kind of “He who dies with
the most toys wins” mentality. Doyle claimed that this kind
of competitive material success is central to many men:
For most men, success is difficult to achieve and once
achieved difficult to hold onto. However, many
American men still seem driven to worship success
as if it were all that mattered in their lives. The sad
truth is that for many men success is all that matters
(p. 163, emphasis in original).
More recent empirical work confirms that the meaning
of money is still gendered (Deutsch, Roksa, & Meeske,
2003) and that men who sacrifice financial security for care
giving are viewed less positively than men who eschew this
trade-off (Riggs, 1997).
Material success and successful fulfillment of the
breadwinner role are achieved through the vehicle of work.
So for men who subscribe to the dominant view of
masculinity, work becomes the central domain of interest
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
(Deutschendorf, 1996; Tolson, 1977). In fact, success at
work becomes the chief mechanism for fulfilling other roles.
In her study of the meaning of family roles, Simon (1995)
found that for most men, “providing economic support is
synonymous with being a father and husband” (p. 186). As
Simon pointed out, family and work roles are interdepen-
dent for men. If men’s successful fulfillment of their family
obligations and demonstration of their masculinity are
wrapped up in their success at work, it would not be
surprising if men’s definitions of success focus narrowly on
this domain, for there is much at stake for men in their work.
Women, however, face a different set of expectations.
Their prescribed roles cluster around caring for others and
nurturing relationships. The different expectations that
women face may lead them to express different values
and concerns. That women speak “in a different voice” has
been suggested by a number of authors, most notably
perhaps by Gilligan’s (1982) book of that title. In com-
paring how females and males make ethical decisions,
Gilligan described women as centred in a personal network
of relationships, whereas men negotiate an impersonal
hierarchy of rules. She argued that the differences she
observed are consistent with Chodorow’s (1978) model of
gender differences in the development of identity. Accord-
ing to Chodorow’s psychodynamic theory, the gender
identity of a young boy is forged through differentiation
from his other-sex caregiver (i.e., his mother), whereas the
gender identity of a young girl is formed through identi-
fication with her same-sex female caregiver. Adolescent
boys are socialized to restrict emotional expression, whereas
girls are socialized to increase emotional expression at the
same age levels (Polce-Lynch et al., 1998). These patterns
of identity formation are hypothesized to result in men who
value independence and detachment and women who value
interdependence and attachment. Recent empirical work
suggests that these patterns persist (Diekman & Murnen,
2004; Karniol et al., 2003).
The emphasis on relationships and care as the defining
elements of feminine identity suggest that women’s success
may be measured by a different yardstick. Historically,
women’s success was judged not by their achievement in
the public realm but by the relationships they forged in the
personal realm (Levinson & Levinson, 1996). Although a
majority of women have now taken on work roles in the
public realm (added to the work roles they have always
fulfilled in the private realm), these personal standards may,
nonetheless, persist. In Simon’s (1995) study of the meaning
of work and family roles, all of the women “viewed em-
ployment as an added responsibility, and felt that a
woman’s primary obligation to her children and spouse is
to provide a well-kept home, emotional support, and
nurturance” (p. 186, emphasis in original). Recent evidence
suggests young women continue to be socialized to place a
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
priority on traditional care-taking roles. In a recent cross-
national sample, McKeen and Bu (2005) found that many
young women, and men, expect that wives will sacrifice
career accomplishments to facilitate the fulfillment of
domestic roles. Orenstein (2000) found that, although young
women are encouraged to develop economic independence,
they also face considerable pressure to enter into more flex-
ible, but less financially rewarding, professions that more
easily accommodate “conventional motherhood” (p. 40).
Gordon (1991) argued that, for women, caring is fundamen-
tal to all aspects of life: “It is through caring connections and
community, not in spite of it—that we [women] achieve and
create” (p. 270). In her review of the implications of
women’s development for career theory, Gallos (1989)
argued that “women’s career gains and professional accom-
plishments are complements, not substitutes, for strong
interdependent relationships” (p. 111). Thus, sustaining
meaningful relationships may be more central to women’s
definitions of success than to men’s definitions.
Empirical studies of the meaning of success Most empirical
research on success has focused on external measures of
success such as the traditional yardsticks of salary and
organizational level. There is a growing recognition among
researchers, however, that it is important also to understand
internal or subjective success. Subjective success refers to
individuals’ feelings about their accomplishments (Gattiker
& Larwood, 1986; Peluchette, 1993). The concept of
subjective success implies that individuals measure how
successful they are according to personal criteria.
Some authors have incorporated the concept of subjective
success into their research by using satisfaction with job or
with career progress as measures of subjective success (e.g.,
Judge & Bretz, 1994; Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz,
1995; Nabi, 2001). Although separately measuring objec-
tive and subjective success is helpful, these studies do not
help us to understand what criteria individuals use in
determining whether or not they are successful. Other
researchers have developed multi-dimensional measures of
success across a variety of life domains. For example,
Parker and Chusmir (1992) examined six specific dimen-
sions of life success: status/wealth, contribution to society,
family relationships, personal fulfillment, professional ful-
fillment, and security. Gattiker and Larwood (1986) mea-
sured five facets of subjective career success (work role,
interpersonal, financial, hierarchical, and life success).
Factor analysis of their measure by Nabi (2001) identified
two underlying dimensions: intrinsic job success (items
such as enjoyable work, respect, and support) and extrinsic
job success (focused on financial rewards and promotional
opportunities). Subsequent work (Nabi, 2003) indicated that
these two components of subjective success have different
relationships to predictor variables.
359
Some of these researchers have found gender differences
in measures of subjective success. For example, in their
sample of men and women in managerial and non-
managerial jobs, Parker and Chusmir (1992) found that
gender had a greater impact on definitions of success than
did job type. Non-managerial women valued personal
fulfillment and family relationships more highly than did
non-managerial men, who valued status and wealth more
highly than the women did. Amongst the managers, women
valued personal fulfillment and security more than did their
male counterparts. Others researchers who have looked at
subjective success found no gender differences in measures
of subjective success (Judge et al., 1995; Nabi, 2001;
Peluchette, 1993). These mixed findings may reflect a
methodological bias. Those who have used global measures
of success have typically found no gender differences (Judge
et al., 1995; Nabi, 2001; Peluchette, 1993). Conversely,
those who have examined specific dimensions of success
have documented a number of significant gender differ-
ences (Duxbury, Dyke, & Lam, 1999, 2000; Kagan, 1993;
Parker & Chusmir, 1992; Sturges, 1999). These results
suggest that, although women and men may report feeling
similarly successful overall, they may be assessing their
success using different metrics.
Working Woman magazine conducted a survey in which
women and men were asked to choose three of seven
things that would make them feel personally successful.
A majority of both women and men chose a happy
family life or relationship (79% of the sample overall),
having enough time for family and friends (65%), and
being in control of their lives (57%; Kagan, 1993).
Smaller numbers chose being very good at their jobs (42%),
being rich enough to buy whatever they want (26%), a
high-level job (11%), and having power or influence (7%).
Although a complete test of gender differences was not
reported, some findings related to gender differences were
mentioned. For instance, more men than women saw wealth
as an indicator of success (32% of men versus 21% of
women). More women than men saw having enough time
for family and friends as a priority (70% of women versus
58% of men). And more women than men indicated
agreement with the statement that they would “rather make
an adequate salary doing a job that makes the world better
than just earn a lot of money” (specific percentages not
reported; Kagan, 1993).
In a study of career development in the public sector,
Duxbury et al. (1999) asked over 2,300 managerial and
professional employees to indicate the importance of 15
different achievements to their personal definition of suc-
cess. Women were more likely than men to rate as impor-
tant: learning and developing new skills, balance between
work and non-work lives, strong relationships on the job,
and moving through positions of increasing responsibility.
360
Men were more likely than women to rate being able to
influence the direction of the organization as important. In
another study of career development, this time in the high
tech sector, Duxbury et al. (2000) asked 1,500 high tech
knowledge workers to rate the importance of the same 15
accomplishments to their definition of success. Again
significant gender differences emerged. Specifically, com-
pared to men, women rated as more important: balance
between work and non-work, being surrounded by stimu-
lating people, being recognized for their expertise, devel-
oping relationships on the job, moving through positions of
increasing responsibility, obtaining personal autonomy, and
making a contribution to society. Once again, men rated
being able to influence organizational direction as more
important than did women. Respondents were also given a
forced-choice question in which they were asked to indicate
whether their personal definition of career success focused
primarily on financial rewards and influence or on personal
satisfaction and respect. Personal satisfaction and respect
was more important to both men (65%) and women (74%),
although significantly more women than men subscribe to
this view of success.
These results suggest that the traditional measures of
success, such as wealth, position, and power, may not be as
important as they once were (or were presumed to be) and
that gender differences in how we define success may be
more complex than originally described. Until we gain a
more comprehensive understanding of what success means
to women and men, our knowledge of people’s career and
personal choices will continue to be limited. The difficulty
in pursuing further empirical work in this area, however, is
that, although many researchers have acknowledged the
need to expand the definitions of success that we use in our
research, there is little grounded empirical work to indicate
what this broader definition might entail. A useful step in
expanding our understanding of the meaning of success is
to explore how women and men define success for
themselves.
One study that did include open-ended interviews to
explore women’s and men’s definitions of success is
Sturges’s (1999) study of 18 male and 18 female managers
in a UK telecommunications company. Sturges classified
her subjects into four orientational categories: (1) climbers
who focus on organizational level and rewards, (2) experts
who focus on mastery and recognition, (3) influencers who
focus on impact and legacy, and (4) self-realizers who focus
on enjoyable work and personal fulfillment. Climbers,
whose definition of success most closely resembles tradi-
tional measures, represented 19% of the sample, experts
25%, influencers 31%, and self-realizers 19% (5% could
not be classified). Sturges found that women’s definitions
of success tended to be broader than men’s—women were
over-represented among the experts and the self-realizers,
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
and none were climbers. The importance of material success
generally declined with age in her sample. Although
Sturges’s work represents a significant step forward in
understanding broader definitions of success and the
implications of gender, there are several limitations of her
work that suggest the need for further research. The
orientational categories Sturges developed are helpful in
summarizing differences in success definitions, however,
empirical work in the field would benefit from a fine-grained
grounded analysis of different success criteria. Further,
Sturges’s interviews did not explore the implications of
different definitions of success. Finally, Sturges’s sample
came from only one organization and focused on mid-level
managers. In her discussion of the results, she noted that the
gender differences she observed may be attributable to the
fact that the women in her sample may not have believed that
they could achieve hierarchical advancement. To overcome
these limitations, additional research with cross-sectional
samples and with high achieving women and men would be
helpful.
The present study of success definitions complements
and extends Sturges’s work. Through open-ended inter-
views, we explored two key questions: (1) How do women
and men define success for themselves?; (2) What career
consequences follow from how people define success? We
collected data from a cross-sectional sample of women and
men who would be considered “successful” by traditional
measures. We report below a fine-grained analysis of what
matters most to women and men.
Method
Rather than impose our notions about the meaning of success
on our data collection, we chose to explore individuals’
definitions of success through open-ended questions, posed
during in-depth interviews. Twenty women and 20 men were
interviewed for this study. We selected participants who had
notable achievements in their work and could thus be
generally considered “successful” by traditional measures.
Sampling was done using the snowball technique. The
referral process upon which the snowball technique is based
is particularly useful for studying rare or elite populations
(Emory & Cooper, 1991) and has been used previously to
study high achieving women (e.g., Davies-Netzley, 1998).
Initial and subsequent respondents were asked at the end of
their interview to recommend other individuals of the same
gender who were in similar positions. Some effort was
made to construct parallel samples, but the snowball
sampling technique did result in slight differences in the
characteristics of the women and men interviewed, as noted
below.
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
Procedure
The data were collected in face-to-face, semi-structured
interviews conducted by a graduate student trained in
interviewing techniques. The interviews contained a wide
range of questions concerning success and career issues. Of
concern to the current study are two key questions:
respondents were asked how they define success for
themselves, and whether their definition of success had
affected their career progress.
Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim.
To maintain the rich nature of the interview data, thematic
coding was used for the analysis. All transcripts were read
and coded by one of the researchers. Instead of using
predetermined categories, all of the themes that emerged
from answers to the relevant questions were recorded. As
new themes emerged, previous transcripts were reviewed to
ensure that all of the relevant themes were captured in all of
the interviews. To assess inter-rater reliability, a second,
student coder reviewed a subset of the women’s interviews
using the themes developed by the primary coder. The
women’s interviews were selected for the test because they
contained more themes on average than the men’s inter-
views did. The inter-rater reliability for a subset of eight
interviews (20%) was 0.70. Although other procedures
(such as questionnaires) might yield data of higher
reliability, the advantage of the semi-structured interviews
was that they provided a more holistic and contextual
portrayal (Jick, 1979) of success definitions than could have
been achieved by quantitative methods. We chose to use the
primary coder’s data because virtually all of the differences
between the primary coder’s data and the secondary coder’s
data were errors of omission in the secondary coding. To
allow readers to assess the evidence themselves, direct
quotes from participants have been used extensively
throughout the analysis below.
The sample
The respondents represented a range of industries, func-
tional areas, organizational levels, and ages (see Table 1).
Table 1 Sample characteristics.
Variable Women
Average age 39
Advanced degrees 20%
Married 55%
With children 40%
Senior management* 50%
Self-employed 10%
Gender differences significant at ***p ≤ .01, **p ≤ .05, *p ≤ .1
361
Respondents were not asked to identify their race, but
observations indicated that the group was predominantly
White. The women ranged in age from 25 to 56 years, with
an average age of 39. They had an average of 15.5 years of
work experience. The men were somewhat older (although
this difference was not statistically significant): they ranged
in age from 26 to 67 years, with an average age of 42.
Consistent with this age difference, the men had more years
of work experience; 20 years was their average. Thus this is
a sample of mature women and men, most of whom would
be in either the maintenance or disengagement phases of
their careers according to Super (1957). All but one
respondent had some post-secondary education; 20% of
the women and 35% of the men held advanced degrees.
Fifty-five percent of each group was currently married.
Fifty percent of the men and 60% of the women had no
children. Thirty percent of each group had children under 18.
Most respondents held positions in the high tech,
financial, consulting, education, and government sectors.
Responsibilities included corporate planning, human
resources management, administration, information sys-
tems, sales, and finance. Although comparable numbers of
women and men were in mid-level managerial and
professional positions (40 and 45%, respectively), there
were some differences in other job categories. For example,
marginally more women than men held senior management
positions (50% of the women, 25% of the men). In
addition, more men than women were self-employed,
although this difference was not statistically significant
(30% of the men, 10% of the women). The implications of
these differences, which reflect the sampling technique
rather than underlying population distributions, are ex-
plored in the discussion section.
Results
Personal definitions of success
Women and men articulated different themes as they
discussed what success means to them personally. For
women success was focused on a personal notion of
balance, and high importance was placed on relationships.
For men, material success still loomed large, although other
themes did emerge. The different approaches to success
Men
articulated by women and men are described below using
42 illustrative quotes. A summary of key differences may be
35% found in Table 2.
55%
50% Women’s definitions of success The predominant theme in
25%
women’s responses to the question of how they define
30%
success for themselves was balance; 50% of the women
mentioned some variant on this theme. Although many of
362
Table 2 Gender differences in the major success themes.
Theme Women (%) Men (%)
Reject traditional definition 40 20
Balance*** 50 5
Material success** 15 45
Relationships 45 30
Gender differences significant at ***p ≤ .01, **p ≤ .05, * p ≤ .1
these women had achieved significant career success, it was
but one part of a larger equation: “Achieving success at any
point for me is a matter of having a good balance in my life
where career is part of that, but I certainly don’t peg success
to career”(W09)1. For these women, career success was not
sufficient; they expected more of themselves. In fact, many
women felt uncomfortable defining success solely in terms
of career: “Well it’s definitely a moving target that definitely
is always changing. I also don’t like to look at it in one area
like career. I go for a balance. I’ve got to have balance in my
life” (W06).
Many of these women explicitly rejected traditional
definitions of success in favour of more personal ones:
I guess what I’m saying is that what people think is
success is not important to me. I believe there are a lot
of positions where outsiders could look at them and
say, “Ah, you’re a very successful individual,” because
of the label. But, if you don’t like what you’re doing
and feel you’re not making a contribution, I think it’s
really tough to look at yourself and say you’re
successful. For me, successful is overplayed. It is
almost a fallacy. Maybe it’s just my definition of
success, but I find the word ‘success’ a bit offensive
because it conjures up money, cars, all the stereotype
stuff (W01).
Another woman commented: “I have never really focused
on the question of success or not success. To me I think that
is somewhat of an artificial standard. Success is really in
the eye of the beholder” (W18). For many of these women
success was defined in intrinsic terms, not by extrinsic
rewards:
Success for me on a personal level is being happy,
being at ease with myself, being able to sleep at night
knowing that the decisions I am making are reasonable
decisions, to be content in the direction that my life is
going (W04).
1 recognition and certainly had a lot of that [in a previous
Respondents’ comments are quoted with an identifier that indicates
their sex and interview number. For instance, W09 indicates the ninth
woman we interviewed.
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
Personal contentment and fulfillment for these women does
not, however, imply isolation:
[Success?] It would be my personal fulfillment. I think
everybody has great potential in many different areas.
Just to feel that you are living to your potential. Then
also I would define it as relationships. The quality of
your relationships with others (W20).
The importance of relationships was a dominant theme
in many of the women’s interviews. Forty-five percent of
the women viewed quality relationships as a critical
component of a successful life:
I suppose, well, what society views success as, well it
tends to be very monetary and materialistic, the big
mansion and lots of money. I think success is—well—
you have good relationships—with your husband,
with the community, with your children, you are
respected in your work, you have adequate monetary
inputs to live your lifestyle (W03).
Relationships were important to female respondents both at
work and in their personal lives. One woman expressed the
importance of developing relationships at work: “Success
does not mean necessarily a promotion. Success can also be
if your subordinates believe in you and support the work
that you do” (W11). Some of these women saw group
achievement as more important than individual success:
“My idea of success has made me realize that I must be
collectively successful rather than individually successful.
The people that I deal with, if they are successful, then I
feel successful” (W15). Rather than seeing their subordi-
nates as a means to an end, these women managers took a
developmental approach to their work relationships:
Success for myself? I think I am happy at the end
of the day when I can leave believing that we
have achieved something as a group and when the
individuals I work with also feel that way. It is a very
demanding role and it’s one that is not done between
8 and 5 and 9 to 5, but generally it’s one that can only
be done through the individuals that work with me. I
think my greatest pleasure is to see them develop and
take positions that are much more senior than the ones
they started with (W02).
In addition to a balanced life and cultivating relationships,
some women in our sample also stressed the importance of
being recognized for what they accomplish at work. A
government professional commented:
Well there are two things. I do like the outside
job]...I do enjoy that but the rest of the success is being
good at a challenging job, being recognized as being
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
good at it, and knowing myself that I have done a good
job (W17).
Another respondent identified very specific goals in terms
of recognition:
My success would be measured by acceptance by
clients, being able to communicate with those people,
establish myself as a key player. I really want to be
considered one of the key players in the industry...
Someone asked me when I took this job what my goal
was in this company, and I said by the time I am
finished in 3 years I want my face on the cover of a
business magazine (W19).
That respondent was clearly seeking broad public recogni-
tion, yet others who addressed this theme talked about
recognition in a more limited, interpersonal fashion:
So you’ve been smart and you’ve helped somebody,
those are the two things. I guess the third thing is
acknowledgement of that. I guess in some ways I am
lucky to have been acknowledged for the things that I
have done in a nice quiet low-key way. I am not big on
acknowledgement, the last thing you would see me do
is run for office (W16).
Only 3 of the 20 women mentioned money as part of how
they define success for themselves. For the woman described
above who sought broad recognition in the media, money
was an important component of success: “Success to me is
measured both by the financial award as well as by the
emotional award” (W19). The other two women who
mentioned money treated it as a secondary concern, and
clearly placed personal satisfaction and relationships above
monetary rewards (as in the quote from W03 above).
The picture that emerges from these women’s comments
is that they do value work for the opportunities it provides
for personal growth and recognition but they do so in a way
in which work does not displace other commitments.
Balancing work and non-work lives and maintaining
healthy relationships both in the workplace and outside of
it were the predominant ways in which these highly
accomplished women defined success for themselves.
Men’s definitions of success Men’s personal definitions of
success touched upon a variety of themes. Material success
was mentioned by 45% of the men, but relationships were
also important (mentioned by 30%). Other themes included
the importance of making a contribution and having
freedom. Only one man (5%) mentioned the issue of
balance.
Although financial rewards were not the only measure of
success that most of the men used, it was an important
component of success for almost one-half of the men:
363
I’d say material success is important. I’d say it’s
probably more important the less you have of it, and
the more you have of it the less important it seems
relative to other things, so I would say it is a very high
component, but it’s not necessarily the dominating
component. I’d say rewards have a lot to do with it,
you know, when you get up in the morning and look in
the mirror, are you being true to yourself in what you
do, and since you spend so much time working, I think
you are successful working if you are doing things that
are true to what you believe in, you know within
reason, and you are still making a good buck at it and
it’s interesting. So success is a combination of that sort
of integrity to yourself, enjoyment in the work, and
getting a good buck to do it, so you can have all the
other things that go with that (M06).
Another man echoed this sentiment by saying success was
“Generally to be able to enjoy your job and what you’re
earning for it” (M10). One professional stated quite bluntly
that “because of my background, success is to have a job, to
have money, it is to live good” (M03). It is interesting that
this same professional was experiencing a crisis in his
relationship to his work:
I lived in my profession to the degree that it is burning
me out now ...I believe that I am extremely successful
even though I am seriously stepping down from [my
field]. It doesn’t mean I am failing at [my field], it
doesn’t mean that. The reason, the error—yes I have
to admit that the error—was not to distance myself
from my work. So my work became my life and that
was not good (M03).
In some cases, although material rewards were not predom-
inant, the desire to live without financial burdens was
acknowledged:
I think it’s just if you have peace of mind, and it has to
do with family, your job, your friends, and if you can
really just go home and only really worry about the
files on your desk, and not have any other concerns
about how your marriage or children are doing, where
the next bump is coming from, or that you don’t have
debtors banging on your door. I think peace of mind
and good health (M05).
One senior manager, who explicitly rejected the importance
of material wealth as an indicator of success, confessed that
his past fixation on material success had caused the failure
of his marriage:
My career goals I guess led to my divorce, led me to
being a workaholic for all the wrong reasons. I was
striving to make money when I should have been
striving to serve the people I was doing the work for. I
364
no longer strive to make money, I strive to provide a
service (M02).
Relationships also figured prominently in almost one-
third of the men’s definitions of success:
So success would be defined as applying energy to
relationships that are symbiotic and that way you can
grow as a person, you can grow as a mentor to people.
One of my big successes is helping people grow in
their own jobs, to actually help them develop their
careers and things. From my perspective the money
comes naturally anyway so it’s not a problem (M09).
One older interviewee attributed his newly found focus on
relationships to the maturation process:
For myself? In the workplace, I would define success
first in terms of the quality of work, which I feel that I
personally have contributed. Because I have, for many
years, been in supervisory positions, I also would
include in that, as a subset of that, the relevant
satisfaction and the quality of work of the people that
work for me. And I would not have considered myself
a success if I had reached an executive position if I
had a bunch of unhappy people working for me, or
unmotivated people working for me. Fortunately that
has not been the case. So perhaps that is a function of
maturing or something like this on the job where I
tend to look beyond myself. And I think that now I am
getting pretty close to the end of my working life,
relatively close to my retirement, that is more and
more important to me. When I look around and say
how have I interacted with those people? How have I
made them better people and satisfied with their own
lot in life? And I feel that I am fortunate, and I feel
relatively content with that (M04).
The preceding quote also illustrates the theme of wanting
to make a contribution. Another interviewee emphasized
the importance of making a contribution at work:
“[Success?] Personal satisfaction, which has more to do
with making a contribution and seeing the results of that
contribution. In other words you can see the results of
the work” (M07).
Freedom was another theme that emerged in the com-
ments of 20% of the men, as in the definition of success
given by an academic:
Probably the biggest thing for me is the freedom to
pursue what I feel I would like to achieve as a person
or to explore as a person in the time that I have. So my
idea of success is to free myself as much as possible
from feeling what I’m doing seems just to maintain the
lifestyle or just to maintain money, just to get enough
money, as much as possible (M01).
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
This theme of personal freedom also emerged strongly
when interviewees were asked how their definition of
success had affected their career progress. This theme is
explored further in the next section.
In summary, material success was firmly imbedded in
many men’s notions of success. Relationships were also
important. Making a contribution and having personal
freedom were other repeated themes. The men who
emphasized other themes, however, often included money
as part of their success criteria. Even men who explicitly
rejected material wealth as an indicator of success, often
talked about that choice as a struggle. For many men, it
seems, the ideal of material success is hard to exorcise.
The impact of success definitions on career progress
As balance was more important to the women and material
success to the men, one might expect that more women
than men would report that their definitions of success had
limited their career progress. This was not the case. Instead,
roughly equal numbers of women and men thought that
their definitions of success had limited their career progress
(60% of women, 65% of men). This result might be
puzzling were it not possible to delve more deeply into the
reasons for these limitations. What emerges from a more
fine-grained content analysis is two sets of quite different
themes that are played out in the lives of women and men.
The impact of success definitions on men’s career progress
Amongst the men who thought that their definition of success
had limited their career progress, the most common reason
given was their desire for independence: “I came to the
conclusion ultimately that I wanted to control my destiny and
have my own business, and not have somebody else to have
control over it. I would have complete control” (M07). The
theme of independence is consistent with the fact that more of
the men were self-employed. The choice of self-employment
reflected their need for independence, as did the way in which
they managed their businesses:
There were many things I could have done to be a
bigger business success, which should have made me
heaps and heaps of money and which would have.
Once that starts, it ties you down and it’s really hard to
get away from that I think. The bigger you are, the
more you have to rely on employees to do the job, the
more critical the job, the more chances of it being
screwed up, I think (M18).
Self-employed men were not the only ones, however, to
voice concerns about independence. One man described a
job change he had made in terms of autonomy: “I didn’t
want to be a pawn” (M20). Another talked about leaving a
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
large organization because “being in a smaller organization
where you have more freedom, was an important part of the
whole thing for me” (M12).
A second major reason the men gave for their career
progress being affected was their interest in recreational
pursuits. One man had traded off career progress for the
opportunity to travel extensively (M19). Another chose
private rather than group practice: “It wasn’t a money
decision at all, it was a purely lifestyle decision ... so that I
can now go home around 3 in the afternoon” (M05). Asked
what he did in his non-work time, this professional (whose
only child was grown) described a variety of leisure pursuits.
A younger single man reported having chosen his current
job based on “an environment where I like to live and where
I do the other things like physical recreation, the arts and
stuff” (M01).
A couple of men did mention family as a reason why
they slowed down their career, but one of them seemed to
view family as a poor reason for making these kinds of
choices:
And I decided not even to apply to [a better job in
another city] because I didn’t want to first of all uproot
my family from [this city] at a time which I thought
was pretty critical. I’ve got a daughter who was just
about to go to University and a son who was in, I think,
grade 11 at the time. So anyway for some reasons which
weren’t very good, I didn’t apply (M15).
There is an underlying sense of regret in this man’s
comments, which appears in 35% of the men’s interviews.
This man’s regrets centre on career opportunities, whereas
others focused on relationships. One man’s midlife regrets
regarding relationships seemed particularly poignant:
“I’m envious of them [friends] in terms of a relationship,
family ... perhaps I wasn’t willing to put myself at risk for
someone else’s gain” (M20). Another man at midlife talked
about how he had felt pressured in his earlier career to accept
work arrangements that he would not now accept:
There were requirements placed upon me at that time
that sometimes put my family responsibilities in the
secondary role, and I wouldn’t accept that now, but I
had to accept it then. I felt I had to accept it then; now I
don’t have to. I had choices, I could have gone
somewhere else, but in the interest of my responsibility
and my interest in the organization that I belong to, very
often your family responsibilities had to take second
place, and I wouldn’t accept that any more (M04).
A majority of men thought that their definition of
success had resulted in slower career progress, but what
they were primarily trading off career advancement for was
independence and the opportunity to pursue leisure inter-
ests. There was a substantial minority who expressed
365
regrets at the tradeoffs they had made. These regrets may
be a symptom of the power that traditional yardsticks of
success may still hold over some men, as suggested by the
following quote:
I haven’t done the things I probably should have done
to be more successful monetarily...In terms of some-
body else looking at me and saying why are you
wearing jeans and why are you driving a Hyundai, and
not something more suitable to the amount of time
you’ve been around (M18).
Even men who consciously reject material definitions of
success may still be haunted by not measuring up to the
provider ideal. Being confined to view success in work and
material terms left many men looking back on life with a
sense of regret.
The impact of success definitions on women’s career
progress An interest in independence and leisure pursuits
was mentioned by one or two women as reasons why they
had experienced slower career progress, but these were
minor themes. The sense of regret that appears in the men’s
interviews was rare in the women’s. Instead most women
seemed to accept the tradeoffs they had made. Although
many women were acutely aware that their personal
definitions of success were at odds with traditional defi-
nitions, their relationships and personal values were strong
motivators for their behavior.
As career was only one component of how most of these
women defined success, slower career progress did not
seem threatening to their self-esteem as the following quote
suggests:
My definition of success, which includes a lot of other
things outside of career, has probably slowed my
progression in terms of career. If my definition of
success did not include family and other things and it
was focused on success in career, then I would not
have taken 5 years off to work freelance and spend
time with my children. I would have put them in day
care and driven ahead with my career goals. I think
overall I have a more successful life because of that.
But my career success has probably been impeded by
that definition (W09).
Concerns about making time for family were echoed by
another woman who explained:
I have been offered in the last few years a position of
higher authority, more salary and responsibility, and
even without subordinates. I was offered that oppor-
tunity but I did not take it because I want my husband
to settle. If I take a new job I’ll give it a 110% and
then I’ll go home exhausted, emotionally tired, brain-
366
dead, too oriented toward the job, and he’ll be doing
the same thing—who needs this? So I turned down a
job offer for a job that looked pretty ideal simply
because I thought, no, I can’t do it right now in my
life. Others will come (W03).
For the most part, these women seemed quite comfortable
with the tradeoffs they had made. One woman did express
regret that her marriage to a man in the same organization
had taken her off the fast track, but when she was asked
later in the interview if she was satisfied with her life she
said:
Oh, very much. I don’t complain. I have everything
that I have ever wanted. I have a husband who supports
me . . [gives examples] . . I have a 6 year old daughter
that is just a delight, a very difficult girl but also a
delight. I’m back in [the city] where my family is. I
have a measure of success by most people’s external
appraisals. In my own internal appraisals, self-satisfac-
tion, it is very, very high (W18).
Success by external standards did contribute to this woman’s
sense of satisfaction but, it is interesting that she thought of it
only after she articulated her satisfaction with her family
relationships.
A number of women talked about how their values and
interests had slowed down their careers. One woman
described a previous job where the value she had placed
on the work itself conflicted with taking advantage of
opportunities for advancement:
So in my definition of success it was more important
to me to do that job [helping those less fortunate] than
to have a potential impact on my prospects when that
organization wound down and changed. It was in
conflict with what people would consider a career
advancement. Because there have been a lot of people
who have worked very hard to keep a high profile to
stay ahead and then have gone into jobs with [X] or
[Y] who perhaps didn’t have the experience but had
the higher profile. So, yes, that would be an example
of it. My personal definition of success conflicted with
the traditional idea of success (W13).
Another woman commented simply that “I sacrificed
income to principles fairly often” (W17). One woman
explained how she had chosen her current job over another
offer because of the values of the people with whom she
would be working:
If I had been thinking strictly career, the other job was
definitely it, without a question. But I came here
because of my boss. That was very important. I
wanted to work for a woman with the same values.
Three months later I am pleased to say that I think I
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
know her quite well, and I think I made a very correct
decision in that regard. Also in terms of the organiza-
tion itself and benefiting Canadians and all of that stuff
(W05).
Their conscious rejection of traditional definitions of success
allowed these women to make choices that better fit their
own interests and values, as the following quote suggests:
“There are lots of other places I could have gone and made
more money, had a more senior position ... but either the
company didn’t interest me or the work itself did not interest
me” (W07). Perhaps because women are not judged
primarily on the basis of their ability to provide materially
for their families, they feel less guilty than men do in making
career choices based on their personal values.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which
“successful” women and men differ in their definitions of
success. Clear gender differences did emerge, and they echo
in significant ways the gender role stereotypes that still
reverberate in our culture. Despite the fact that the women in
our sample would be considered successful according to
traditional measures, they defined success quite differently
than their male colleagues did. In a sample that consisted of a
high number of women in upper level management
positions, status, career progression, and perhaps even
materialism, might be expected to figure prominently in
their definitions of success, but they did not. Our focus on
high achieving women and men provides greater confidence
that these results reflect “true” gender differences rather than
differences related to organizational position. This is a
significant contribution to the understanding of gender
differences in success definitions.
We found that women who had made it to the top of the
career hierarchy did not primarily define success in terms of
career. Instead, balance was critical. As Powell and
Mainiero (1992) suggested, two types of concerns
influence women’s lives: concerns for career and profes-
sional achievement, and concerns about personal relation-
ships. The women in our study were concerned with both of
these life elements, however, they did not view them as
mutually exclusive. For the women in our study, concerns
regarding career and personal growth were imbedded
within a larger schema of social connection, including the
establishment and maintenance of meaningful relationships.
They were exemplars of what O’Brien (1998) described as
“multidimensional women, multidimensional success”
(p. 36). To achieve success on their own terms, many
women chose to pursue different goals than did their male
counterparts.
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
In contrast, the men in our study were more likely to
compartmentalize concerns for career and personal achieve-
ment from concerns about relationships. Although relation-
ships were important to many men (at least 30%), making
career sacrifices to sustain relationships was not a comfort-
able choice. Men could rationalize slower career progress to
meet their need for independence or to pursue recreational
aims, but seemed reluctant to do so for the sake of
relationships. In other words, for men, career and personal
spheres were not inseparably linked as they were for women
in the sample. It seems that these men may have internalised
the disapproval with which men who sacrifice financial
security for care giving are met (Riggs, 1997). These
attitudes may represent barriers to men’s participation as
full partners in the lives of their families.
Our results add support to the research of others that has
shown that gender has important ramifications for how
people approach their work lives. For instance, Nabi (2001)
found that women feel more successful (experience higher
levels of intrinsic job success) when they have more personal
support. Our findings also support the work of Brush (1992),
who, in examining the differences between female and male
business owners, suggested that women do not view their
economic units as do men, but instead perceive their
businesses as part of an interconnected system of relation-
ships that includes family and the community. The results
suggest that the development and nurturance of valued
relationships both outside and within the workplace is
important to women.
Making a contribution to what they believed in was also
a key element of women’s definitions of success. Women
seemed content to trade career progress for opportunities
more consistent with their values. Whether this contentment
was a function of underlying values or was an accommo-
dation to the reality of the more constrained career
opportunities women face, we cannot say. Hardesty and
Jacobs (1986) argued that many women experience a
confrontation early in their careers between how they
define success and what the corporation rewards, which
leads to a reevaluation of their goals and roles in the
corporate world. An in-depth analysis of this issue is
beyond the scope of this article, but there is some evidence
suggestive of this dynamic in our interviews (see, for
instance, quotes by W05, W13, and W17 above). Whatever
the reason for their acceptance of slower career progress,
few women expressed regrets. Despite the price they
thought they had paid in career terms, women in our
sample believed that a balanced life was worth the career
costs. The broader question, however, is: why is it
necessary to pay a career price in order to live a balanced
life and what are the social costs of that requirement?
Many men in our sample were still attracted to (or in
some cases it seemed more like haunted by) the ideal of
367
material success. For many of these men, other goals could
be pursued only when a certain level of financial success
had been obtained. Although the men did not explicitly talk
about the breadwinner role, its legacy seemed clear in their
struggles to move beyond financial yardsticks. Although
others have noted a sense of disquiet amongst those
(predominantly men) who have sacrificed other aspects of
their lives to achieve career success (e.g., Halper, 1988;
Korman, Wittig-Berman, & Lang, 1981; O’Neil, 1993), we
were saddened by the regrets that many men expressed
about the choices they had made. Why shouldn’t men feel
free to make the same choices that women do?
We see evidence here of what Hochschild (1989) called
the stalled revolution. Women have moved in significant
numbers into the public realm of work, but not on equal
terms, thus creating a half-changed world, as Orenstein
(2000) described it. As a consequence, women have
expanded their concept of what success means to empha-
size balance between their professional and personal lives.
Most men, however, have not yet taken equal responsibility
in the private realm of family (Kimmel, 1993). Men’s roles
are changing more slowly than women’s, and, as a result,
their view of success is still strongly colored by the
traditional breadwinner role. Although many men do value
other forms of success, our results suggest that the
evolution of men’s roles is still a work in progress.
One possible concern with our study is that we have
examined gender differences instead of differences in
gender role orientation. Gender role orientation measures
assess acceptance of gender-stereotypical attitudes and
behavior and explicitly recognize that some women and
men are more “feminine” or “masculine” in their orientation
than others are (Bem, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1978).
Gender role orientation is typically a stronger predictor of
behavior than is gender per se (see for example, Aylor &
Dainton, 2004; Karniol, Gabay, Ochion, & Harari, 1998;
Karniol et al, 2003; Soechting, Skoe, & Marcia, 1994). One
concern, however, with using gender role orientation to
explain behavioral differences is that the overlap between
measures of the independent and dependent variables might
be significant and may possibly, as Smiler (2004) argued,
blur subject and object. Explaining behavior by reference to
gender instead of gender role orientation attenuates our
findings but does allow for greater confidence in the results.
Given that our sample is atypical in having an over-
representation of high achieving women (50% in senior
management), this should further attenuate the significance
of any differences. As noted above, one might expect that
these women, who had achieved significant recognition in a
male-dominated domain, would espouse definitions of
success that are closer to those of men. The fact that this
group of women espouses definitions of success that are
different from their male counterparts is particularly
368
striking and suggests that these gender differences are quite
robust.
Another possible concern relates to our sample. The men
in the sample were slightly older on average than the
women. Although this age difference was not statistically
significant, it could be a potential confound and raises the
following question: Are the differences we found attribut-
able to gender or can they be explained by alternative
theories such as life stage theories? Levinson’s research on
adult life stages suggests that as people age, they become
less concerned with material success and more concerned
with social contributions and meaning (Levinson, 1978;
Levinson & Levinson, 1996). Some of the research on
career choices and attitudes has shown life stage and/or
career stage to be important predictors (e.g., Melamed,
1996; Ornstein, Cron, & Slocum, 1989). Other researchers
have questioned the explanatory value of adult develop-
ment and career stage models (Morrow & McElroy, 1987),
particularly for women (Cytrynbaum & Crites, 1989; Lynn,
Cao, & Horn, 1996; Sullivan, 1999). Although a full
analysis of these differences is beyond the scope of this
article, there is some evidence of this dynamic in some of
the men’s interviews quoted above (see quotes from M02,
M03, and M20, all of whom fall within Levinson’s mid-life
transition period, and M04, age 60). Nevertheless if age
matters more than gender, our pattern of results should be
reversed. Life stages theory suggests that the younger
women in our sample should be more focussed on material
wealth and the older men more focussed on balance. We
found the opposite pattern, thus, our results more likely
reflect gender differences than age differences.
Another characteristic of the sample, which could
potentially have influenced our results, is the higher number
of self-employed men than women. As an entrepreneur’s
success is often bound up with the success of her or his
business, and business success is often measured in financial
terms (Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre,
1995), it could be argued that the greater number of self-
employed men may have contributed to the finding that
more men than women were concerned with financial
success. There are two factors that mitigate against this
influence: (a) the difference in self-employment between
men and women is not statistically significant, so it is less
likely to influence the results; and (b) two of the six self-
employed men are professionals (a psychiatrist and a
lawyer) who may have been socialized into professional
values that differ from those of entrepreneurs. Nevertheless,
to assess the possibility of such an undue influence, we
examined the impact of excluding the self-employed men
from the sample. Excluding the six self-employed men, the
percentage of men who included material rewards as part of
their definition of success was 43% compared to 45% for
the entire sample of men. Thus the relatively high number
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
of self-employed men does not seem to have unduly
influenced the results.
There are some other unique characteristics of our
sample that might limit generalizability. Only 50% of the
men and 40% of the women in our sample had children.
Age is not a likely explanation for this finding, as the
average age of our sample as a whole is 39. Other
researchers have also found that women in senior manage-
ment are less likely to have children than either their male
counterparts or than women in traditionally female-domi-
nated occupations, so this sample is not representative of
the population as a whole. We hypothesize that relation-
ships and balance may assume a larger role in the lives of
those with children.
Our findings may also have been influenced by the social
desirability of responses. Women may have responded that
relationships are important to them because they are aware
that society expects such an answer. As we did not track how
participants spend their time, we cannot ascertain whether or
not our participants lived according to their stated principles.
Time usage data does indicate, however, that married women
who work full-time spend significantly more time than
married men who work full-time on unpaid work in the home
(4.8 h/week compared to 3.2 h for men) including time spent
on childcare (1.3 h/week compared to 0.9 h/week for men;
Frederick, 1995). In addition, these data indicate that men
spend an average of 4.4 h on leisure activities per week
while women spend only 3.6 h/week on leisure activities
(Frederick, 1995).
Our results suggest several directions for future research.
From the theoretical point of view, although the career stage
and adult development literature provide valuable points of
departure for understanding the meaning of success, those
models do not adequately explain the gender differences
found in the present study. The differences we found in
what matters most to men and women serve to reinforce the
call for a separate model of adult development and career
stage for women, which recognizes the fundamentally
patriarchal underpinnings of traditional definitions of
success. It may be as Levinson and Levinson (1996)
suggested that, for women, coming to terms with this
disjuncture between personal and traditional definitions of
success is an important developmental task.
On the methodological side, future research could
benefit from the use of larger, more varied samples.
Although our snowball technique was useful for examining
the success definitions of men and women who were
identified as being “successful,” a limitation of this tech-
nique is that it may produce a sample of “people who are like
me.” A larger random sample could determine whether these
findings are consistent in samples that better mirror the
population, that is, where the career attainments are more
normally distributed. A larger sample size would also allow
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
for an examination of life cycle effects. Some of our
respondents suggested that their life experiences had
altered their definitions of success. Larger samples with
representation of both women and men at different points
in the life cycle are needed in order to explore their
effects. Finally future studies of other special populations
could make interesting and important comparisons that
could add to our understanding of how gender role
orientation plays into our success definitions. For example,
a comparison of men and women without children to those
who have children could yield interesting differences and
identify other trade-offs. Similarly, a comparison of non-
traditional gender role occupations, such as house husbands
or female blue collar workers, could further illuminate the
role of societal pressures and their impact on individual
definitions of success.
Our results also suggest a number of implications for
organizations. In the present study we focused on a group
of people who, by traditional yardsticks, would be consid-
ered successful. Yet a majority of these people, both men and
women, willingly chose slower career progress in order to
pursue personal satisfaction in a variety of forms. This
finding is consistent with the diversity of success orienta-
tions identified by Derr (1986) and what Leinberger and
Tucker (1991) have dubbed “the new individualists” (p. 2).
In their work Duxbury et al. (1999, 2000) estimated that
only 40% of public sector employees and 33% of high tech
knowledge workers hold traditional definitions of success;
the remainder “espouse newer, more dynamic and holistic
definitions.” We add our voices to those of others who argue
that organizations need to recognize and accommodate these
more multifaceted definitions of success (Duxbury et al.,
1999, 2000; Kimmel, 1993; Sekaran & Hall, 1989). The
flexibility that some organizations have offered to help
employees to accommodate work and family issues is a
step in the right direction, but much work remains to be
done. Although our interviewees were not asked what their
employers could do to facilitate their success, other
research on what employees (albeit at lower organizational
levels) want from their organizations suggests that, in
addition to work–life balance, enjoyable work, a personal
sense of accomplishment, being able to learn and develop
skills and earning a salary that provides a comfortable
lifestyle are the achievements most critical to employees
(Duxbury et al., 1999, 2000). Organizations would be well
served by reviewing the extent to which they facilitate the
accomplishment of these employee goals.
The achievement of balance and developing meaningful
relationships—both of which are critical to women’s
definitions of success—have not traditionally been impor-
tant to organizations. In recent years, work–life balance has
been on many organizational agendas, however, longitudinal
research suggests that many organizations give only lip
369
service to the concept of work–life balance (Duxbury &
Higgins, 2001). In addition, Wicks and Bradshaw (2002)
found that women and men held different views about the
kinds of values that the culture of their organization should
uphold. For example, women thought that organizations
should be significantly less accepting of formal authority
and more friendly than they are at present. Another recent
study of organizational culture preferences (Vianen &
Fischer, 2002) showed that managerial ambition was
positively related to masculine organizational culture pref-
erences (i.e., people who prefer a competitive environment
and are willing to invest high effort into work have higher
managerial ambition). Fewer women than men in that
sample held masculine organizational culture preferences.
This is one possible explanation for the more limited
managerial aspirations of women, which were noted in a
recent Harvard Business Review article entitled “Do
Women Lack Ambition?” (Fels, 2004). The author noted
a link between recognition and ambition and suggested
that, because women do not receive as much recognition
for their achievements as men do, it dampens women’s
ambition. These results taken together suggest that many
organizations do not do a good job of accommodating
women’s values. Until organizations do a better job of
facilitating the achievement of women’s goals, many
talented women will choose not to pursue managerial
careers.
It might seem that organizations do a better job of
accommodating men’s definitions of success because
compensation is one of the most common ways in which
organizations reward employees. However a number of
the men in our sample valued autonomy and accepted
career trade-offs to achieve it. Further, the regrets that
some men expressed indicated that they were forced to
make uneasy choices. This may reflect an ongoing
transition between traditional and newer masculine roles,
which have not yet permeated organizations. For instance,
some evidence suggests that, whereas women who take
parental leave may be penalized in terms of career
advancement, the penalties for men who take parental
leave may be even greater (Riggs, 1997). Until there is
more support for new masculine roles we can expect men
to continue to struggle with the sacrifices and negative
consequences of striving for what philosopher William
James, writing in the late nineteenth century, called “the
bitch–goddess success” (as cited in O’Neil, 1993, p. 26).
References
Aylor, B., & Dainton, M. (2004). Biological sex and psychological
gender as predictors of routine and strategic relational mainte-
nance. Sex Roles, 50, 689–697.
370
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past
trends, a new perspective and future directions. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 16, 5–30.
Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre (1995). Canadian
business speaks out on access to capital. Ottawa: CLMPC.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
Cooper, S. E., Arkkelin, D. L., & Tiebert, M .J. (1994). Work–
relationship values and gender role differences in relation to
career–marriage aspirations. Journal of Counseling and Devel-
opment, 73, 63–68.
Cytrynbaum, S., & Crites, J. O. (1989). The utility of adult
development theory in understanding career adjustment process.
In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.),
Handbook of career theory (pp. 66–88). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Davies-Netzley, S. A. (1998). Women above the glass ceiling:
Perceptions of corporate mobility and strategies for success.
Gender & Society, 12, 339–355.
Derr, C. B. (1986). Managing the new careerists. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Deutsch, F. M., Roksa, J., & Meeske, C. (2003). How gender counts
when couples count their money. Sex Roles, 48, 291–304.
Deutsch, F. M., & Saxon, S. E. (1998). Traditional ideologies,
nontraditional lives. Sex Roles, 38, 331–362.
Deutschendorf, H. (1996). Of work and men: How men can become
more than their careers. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fairview.
Di Dio, L., Sargovi, C., & Koestner, R. (1996). Linking personal
values to gender. Sex Roles, 34, 621–636.
Diekman, A. B., & Murnen, S. K. (2004). Learning to be little women
and little men: The inequitable gender equality of nonsexist
children’s literature. Sex Roles, 50, 373–385.
Doss, B. D., & Hopkins, J. R. (1998). The Multicultural Masculinity
Ideology Scale: Validation from three cultural perspectives. Sex
Roles, 38, 719–741.
Doyle, J. A. (1983). The male experience. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown.
Duxbury, L., Dyke, L., & Lam, N. (1999). Career development in the
federal public service: Building a world-class workforce. Ottawa:
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
Duxbury, L., Dyke, L., & Lam, N. (2000). Managing high technology
employees. Scarborough, Ontario: Carswell.
Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2001). Work–life balance in the new
millennium: Where are we? Where do we need to go? Ottawa:
Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Eisenstein, S. (1983). Give us bread but give us roses. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Emory, C. W., & Cooper, D. R. (1991). Business research methods.
Homewood, Illinois: Irwin.
Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American
women. New York: Crown.
Fels, A. (2004). Do women lack ambition? Harvard Business Review,
82(4), 50–60.
Frederick, J. A. (1995). As time goes by: Time use of Canadians.
Ottawa: Statistics Canada (Cat. No. 89-544-X).
Gallos, J. V. (1989). Exploring women’s development: Implications
for career theory, practice, and research. In M. B. Arthur, D. T.
Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp.
110–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gattiker, U., & Larwood, L. (1986). Subjective career success: A
study of managers and support personnel. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 1, 78–94.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and
women’s development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
Gordon, S. (1991). Prisoners of men’s dreams. Boston: Little, Brown.
Halper, J. (1988). Quiet desperation: The truth about successful men.
New York: Warner.
Hardesty, S., & Jacobs, N. (1986). Success and betrayal. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Avon Books.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods:
Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
602–611.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Political influence behaviour and
career success. Journal of Management, 20, 43–65.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995).
An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career
success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–520.
Kagan, J. (1993). Success: Not what it used to be. Working Woman,
pp. 55–62 (November).
Karniol, R., Gabay, R., Ochion, Y., & Harari, Y. (1998). Is gender or
gender-role orientation a better predictor of empathy in adoles-
cence? Sex Roles, 39, 45–59.
Karniol, R., Grosz, E., & Schorr, I. (2003). Caring, gender role
orientation, and volunteering. Sex Roles, 49, 11–19.
Kimmel, M. S. (1993). What do men want? Harvard Business Review,
71(6), 50–63.
Korman, A. K., Wittig-Berman, U., & Lang, D. (1981). Career
success and personal failure: Alienation in professionals and
managers. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 342–360.
Leinberger, P., & Tucker, B. (1991). The new individualists. New
York: Harper Collins.
Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.
Levinson, D. J., & Levinson, J. D. (1996). The seasons of a woman’s
life. New York: Knopf.
Lynn, S. A., Cao, L. T., & Horn, B. C. (1996). The influence of career
stage on the work attitudes of male and female accounting
professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 135–149.
McKeen, C. A., & Bu, N. (2005). Gender roles: An examination of the
hopes and expectations of the next generation of managers in
Canada and China. Sex Roles, 52, 533–546.
McCreary, D. R., Newcomb, M. D., & Sadava, S. W. (1998).
Dimensions of the male gender role: A confirmatory analysis in
men and women. Sex Roles, 39, 81–95.
Melamed, T. (1996). Validation of a stage model of career success.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 35–65.
Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1987). Work commitment and job
satisfaction over three career stages. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 30, 330–346.
Nabi, G. R. (2001). The relationship between HRM, social support,
and subjective career success among men and women. Interna-
tional Journal of Manpower, 22, 457–474.
Nabi, G. R. (2003). Situational characteristics and subjective career
success: The mediating role of career-enhancing strategies.
International Journal of Manpower, 24, 653–671.
O’Brien, V. (1998). Success on our own terms: Tales of extraordinary,
ordinary business women. New York: Wiley.
O’Neil, J. R. (1993). The paradox of success. New York: Putnam.
Orenstein, P. (2000). Flux: Women on sex, work, kids, love, and life in
a half-changed world. New York: Doubleday.
Ornstein, S., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1989). Life stage versus
career stage: A comparative test of the theories of Levinson and
Super. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 117–133.
O’Toole, P. (1993). Redefining success. Working Woman, pp. 49–97
(November).
Oxford English Dictionary (Compact ed.), Volume 1. (1971). Glasgow,
Scotland: Oxford University Press.
Parker, B., & Chusmir, L. H. (1992). A comparison of men and
women managers’ and nonmanagers’ perceptions of success.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3, 73–84.
Sex Roles (2006) 55:357–371
Peluchette, J. V. (1993). Subjective career success: The influence of
individual difference, family, and organizational variables.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 198–208.
Polce-Lynch, M., Myers, B. J., Kilmartin, C. T., Forssmann-Falck, R.,
& Kliewer, W. (1998). Gender and age patterns in emotional
expression, body image, and self-esteem: A qualitative analysis.
Sex Roles, 38, 1025–1048.
Powell, G. N., & Mainiero, L. A. (1992). Cross-currents in the river of
time: Conceptualizing the complexities of women’s careers.
Journal of Management, 18, 215–237.
Riggs, J. M. (1997). Mandates for mothers and fathers: Perceptions of
breadwinners and caregivers. Sex Roles, 37, 565–580.
Sekaran, U., & Hall, D. T. (1989). Asynchronism in dual-career and
family linkages. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence
(Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 159–180). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Simon, R. W. (1995). Gender, multiple roles, role meaning, and mental
health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 182–194.
Soechting, I., Skoe, E. E., & Marcia, J. E. (1994). Care-oriented moral
reasoning and prosocial behavior: A question of gender or sex
role orientation. Sex Roles, 31, 131–147.
Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender:
Psychological concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles,
50, 15–26.
371
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity:
Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents.
Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Sturges, J. (1999). What it means to succeed: Personal conceptions of
career success held by male and female managers at different
ages. British Journal of Management, 10, 239–252.
Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 25, 457–484.
Super, D. (1957). Psychology of careers. New York: Harper.
Tolson, A. (1977). The limits of masculinity. London: Tavistock.
Vianen, A. E. M. V., & Fischer, A. H. (2002). Illuminating the
glass ceiling: The role of organizational culture preferences.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
315–337.
Wicks, D., & Bradshaw, P. (2002). Investigating gender and organi-
zational culture: Gendered value foundations that reproduce
discrimination and inhibit organizational change. In I. Aaltio &
A. J. Mills (Eds.), Gender, identity, and the culture of organ-
izations (pp. 137–159). New York: Routledge.
Wilkie, J. R. (1993). Changes in U.S. men’s attitudes toward
the family provider role, 1972–1989. Gender & Society, 7,
261–279.
Zuo, J. (1997). The effect of men’s breadwinner status on their
changing gender beliefs. Sex Roles, 37, 799–816.