"The “Ambition Gap” Explained: Workplace Mistreatment as a Function of Gender, Ambition, and Rank"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The continued gender gap in wages and rank are popularly attributed to an “ambition gap” between men and women (Sandberg, 2013). According to this explanation, men, but not women, desire and strive for positions of power and prestige at work. With two field studies we investigated why this might be the case. Drawing on prior theory and research on workplace mistreatment, we suggest that ambition is penalized in women more than in men at work, and that this difference becomes more pronounced up the organizational hierarchy. Study 1 showed that, contrary to popular stereotypes, women were as or more ambitious than men, yet ambition positively predicted women’s, but not men’s, experiences of workplace mistreatment. Study 2 investigated the sources of mistreatment by organizational rank and found that ambitious men were mistreated by superiors and coworkers, but that ambitious women were mistreated by superiors, coworkers, and subordinates as well. In other words, the social penalties for ambition appear to cease when men, but not when women, become the “boss.” Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".