Career Success and Minority Status: A Review and Conceptual Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the management field has witnessed a surge in studies examining career success among workers from historically marginalized minority groups. However, to date, insights gained from this research remain fragmented and have not been integrated into the existing career success frameworks. We aim to complement career success scholarship and contribute to its inclusivity by conducting a systematic review that synthesizes the factors and pathways contributing to the career success of four historically underrepresented minority groups: women, racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities, and the LGBTQ+ community. Evidencing that career success disparity can be attributed to minority status, we propose a framework that highlights the career advancement and human and psychological resources associated with minority groups’ career success, as well as the systemic barriers limiting access to and use of such resources. We suggest hypervisibility, invisibility, and managed visibility as distinguishable forms of identity-based mechanisms that offer theoretical explanations for the influence of marginalized identity status on career success. Our framework integrates manifestations of subjective career success—accounting for survival, the collective good, and adjustability in addition to what extant literature has shown—emphasizing that membership in marginalized groups, communities, and other identity-relevant contexts shapes the subjective meaning of career success. Our review has practical implications for decision makers and organizations intending to bridge minority and nonminority groups’ career success disparity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".