Received: 18 January 2020 Revised: 1 January 2023 Accepted: 19 January 2023

DOI: 10.1002/job.2691

REVIEW ARTICLE

Catty, bitchy, queen bee or sister? A review of competition

among women in organizations from a paradoxical-coopetition
perspective

Ronit Kark 1,2 | Nurit Yacobovitz 1 | Lihi Segal-Caspi 1,3 |

Shulamit Kalker-Zimmerman 2

1
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
2
University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Abstract
3
Open University, Ra'anana, Israel Women in organizations must grapple with a double-bind stemming from conflicting
expectations toward them to exhibit both competition (per workplace norms) and
Correspondence
Ronit Kark, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, cooperation (per societal gender-specific norms), and they often suffer a backlash for
Israel.
conforming to one expectation at the expense of the other. Similarly, different
Email: karkronit@gmail.com
streams of literature offer contrasting accounts of women's competitive attitudes
Funding information and behavior. This systematic review is the first attempt to integrate research on
There are no funders available.
competition among women in organizations across research disciplines to gain a
nuanced insight into the pervasiveness, causes, dynamics, and manifestations of this
phenomenon. In doing so, we draw on the wide research pertaining to women's
intra-gender competitive attitudes and behavior in structured competition within
organizations, and on relevant intersectionality research that looks at diverse groups
of women. We synthesize the research to suggest a paradoxical framework of coope-
tition (competitive-cooperation) that can guide future theoretical insights and
research directions, along with practical organizational tools, to effectively deal with
the tension and inequality that result from paradoxical expectations and formulate
important future research directions.

KEYWORDS
competition, coopetition, gender, intersectionality, organizations, paradox

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N
Two opposing perspectives govern people's beliefs regarding women's
behavior toward one another in the workplace. These opposing and
stereotypic views are apparent in popular press articles and self-help
Nurit Yacobovitz, Lihi Segal-Caspi, and Shulamit Kalker-Zimmerman contributed equally to
the manuscript and are shown in the reversed alphabetical order.
books. Some of these publications present the view that women com-
pete at work in order to hinder one another, whereas others empha-
size sisterhood and collaboration among women. For example, a
recent New York Times article opened with the statement: “Women
compete, compare, undermine, and undercut one another — at least
that is the prevailing notion of how we interact.” According to this
article, it is considered “exceptional” when women collaborate with
one another and acknowledge other women's talent “without being

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Organizational Behavior published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

J Organ Behav. 2023;1–29. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1


2 KARK ET AL.
catty about it” (Apicella & Mollerstrom, 2017). In line with this mes-
sage, there is a raft of popular books that assume women are funda-
mentally antagonistic toward one another. These books paint an ugly
picture of women's alleged basic nature, with titles such as: Mean Girls
at Work, Working with Bitches, Women's Inhumanity to Women, and The
Stiletto in Your Back (Harris & Kramer, 2019). Conversely, statements
such as “There is a special place in hell for women who do not help
other women” (Madeline Albright), “Real queens fix each other's
crowns,” and “Don't underestimate the power of women supporting
each other at work,”) Welsh McNulty, 2018) convey a different gen-
dered expectation of sisterhood and solidarity. Indeed, there are also
articles about the friendships, support, collaborations, and sisterhood
among women (Bartunek et al., 2000; Huffman, 2013).
Each of these opposing views regarding women's behavior
toward other women at work corresponds with one of two opposing
expectations working women are forced to grapple with. On the one
hand, women are expected to conform to the highly competitive work
culture and compete over power, influence, promotions, and presti-
gious positions in the workplace. On the other hand, women are
expected to conform to the societal expectation that they exhibit
communal and collaborative behaviors with one another. Thus, once
women compete with one another at work, they shatter the expecta-
tion for solidarity among women and may be viewed negatively for
violating social norms of “sisterhood” and cooperation (Brescoll &
Uhlmann, 2008; Mavin, 2008). Women who compete with other
women in the workplace are scrutinized and perceived to be “catty”
(Livingston et al., 2014) and are perceived more negatively than men
who display competitive behavior (e.g., Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008;
Littler & Rottenberg, 2021; Sheppard & Aquino, 2013). These conflict-
ing expectations of working women can hinder women's performance
and harm their own self-evaluations and well-being, as well as the
way they are evaluated by others in the workplace.
These conflicting assumptions and expectations are echoed in the
empirical literature on women's intra-gender competition in organiza-
tions. While some empirical works from the Economic Behavior litera-
ture suggest that women “shy away” from competition and that this
tendency can, at least partially, account for the gender gap in the labor
market (e.g., Niederle & Vesterlund, 2007), other works from the
Organizational literature highlight women's competitiveness and phe-
nomena such as the “queen bee syndrome” (e.g., Mavin, 2006a,
2006b), “worker bee syndrome” (e.g., Ely, 1995), and female misogyny
(e.g., Sasson-Levy, 2003) within which women not only compete, but
also perpetuate gender inequality (e.g., Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011).
As noted by Sheppard and Aquino (2013): “The literature examining
the quality of relationships among women at work is often contradic-
tory and far from conclusive” (p. 56). Many questions remain unan-
swered. Does women's intra-gender competition at work differ from
that of men? What are the reasons for the emergence of competition
among women at work? And how is it enacted?
In this paper, we suggest a paradoxical approach to explore the
literature on competition among women. Paradoxes arise among
“contradictory, yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously
and persist over time” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 382). The major idea
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
of a paradox perspective is that tension is embedded in the individ-
ual/system; thus, effectiveness depends on attending to interrelated
and contradictory demands simultaneously (e.g., Garud et al., 2011).
Recently, works on women's leadership examined the importance of
paradox management mechanisms (Kark et al., 2016; Zheng
et al., 2018, 2018) and called for the examination of how paradoxical
perspectives play out in women's ability to be influential and avoid
being taxed at work. We offer a paradox lens to explain how women
can respond to the tensions posed by pervasive paradoxical demands
for both competition and solidarity. To do so, we draw on the con-
structs of coopetition—a neologism coined to describe cooperative
competition (e.g., Raza-Ullah et al., 2014; Yami et al., 2010) and on the
construct of paradox mindset (e.g., Miron-Spektor et al., 2017).
Despite the importance of understanding the pervasiveness,
uniqueness, and causes of women's intra-gender competition in organi-
zations, due to evidence of negative ramifications for women who are
perceived as competitive (e.g., Mavin, 2008; Sheppard & Aquino, 2013)
along with evidence that women's lack of competitiveness also limits
their careers and success in organizations (e.g., Buser & Yuan, 2019), this
topic is under-researched and ambiguous (e.g., Mavin et al., 2014). In
the last few years, however, a substantial body of work on women
and competition has accumulated from several research fields,
including Social Psychology (e.g., Kuchynka et al., 2018), Develop-
mental Psychology (e.g., Andersen et al., 2013; Flory et al., 2018;
Sutter & Glätzle-Rützler, 2014), Evolutionary Psychology (e.g., Kivlighan
et al., 2005; Vugt et al., 2007), Behavioral Economics (e.g., Buser &
Yuan, 2019; Croson & Gneezy, 2009), and Organizational Behavior
(Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011; Derks, Van Laar, et al., 2011; Sheppard &
Aquino, 2013). Yet, scholars in one discipline have rarely recognized or
built on the work of scholars in other disciplines when theorizing about or
empirically studying competition among women. Thus, any single stream
of research on competition among women does not capture the full range
of this phenomenon, nor can it capture all the nuances associated with it.
To date, there have been no localized attempts to systematically
review the specific topic of intra-gender competition among women
in organizations.1 The present review article is an attempt to integrate
research on competition among women, across research disciplines
and perspectives, to gain a nuanced insight into the pervasiveness,
causes, dynamics, and manifestations of women's intra-gender com-
petition in the work context. As such, this systematic and integrative
review of women's intra-gender competition across different fields of
research is timely and important, as it contributes to our theoretical
understanding of women's intra-gender competition, as well as the
1
The topic of intra-gender competition has received only limited attention in academic
reviews focused on inter-gender competition (Croson & Gneezy, 2009; Weisfeld, 1986) and
in popular press reviews of intra-gender relationships that are not focused specifically on
competition (Mean Girls Grown Up; Dellasega, 2007); It's Not You, It's the Workplace (Harris &
Kramer, 2019). While several conceptual articles relate to the topic of women and
competition in organizational settings, these works address specific forms of competition and
do not aim to capture the full multidisciplinary range of works. Specifically, these works take
a more sociological perspective on women in natural settings and use the organizational
literature on gender and competition in order to question negative relationships among
women (Mavin, 2006b) and to develop novel theoretical models on relationships among
women in organizations (Sheppard & Aquino, 2017). Moreover, these conceptual papers do
not offer an exhaustive account of the wide range of literature on competition among
women in general and within organizations.

KARK ET AL.
extent, expressions, and ramifications of their competition in organiza-
tions. Moreover, the insights derived from our review also add to
practice by offering intervention tools for organizations to effectively
deal with the tension and inequality that results from the paradoxical
expectations toward women. Specifically, we offer a theoretical para-
doxical framework for understanding the dual and conflicting expecta-
tions of women to be both competitive and collaborative, and explain
the importance for women and for organizations to embrace both
types of behaviors using the lens coopetition. Lastly, we map future
research directions necessary to further reduce gaps in the literature,
as well as in workplace inequality.
2 | D E F I N I T I O N S A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y OF
LITERATURE REVIEW
Like the general competition literature, women's intra-gender competi-
tion research is subject to inconsistencies in terminology. Competition
has been defined as a situation that is structured in a way in which
goals are negatively related, or people believe they are, so that one's
successful goal attainment makes others less likely to reach their goals
(Deutsch, 1949; Hibbard & Buhrmester, 2010; VandenBos, 2007).
Competition has been viewed and defined through various lenses
(Murayama & Elliot, 2012; Swab & Johnson, 2018), whether as an intra-
personal process (competition with oneself; Lewis, 1944), a personality
trait or an attitude (a dispositional preference to compete;
e.g., Ryckman et al., 1996), an actual or perceived situation (a cognitive
construal or an actual situation in which individuals vie for a mutually
exclusive achievement outcome; e.g., Deutsch, 1949; Kohn, 1992;
Murayama & Elliot, 2012; Stanne et al., 1999; VandenBos, 2007), an
intergroup behavior (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1978), or a process
(e.g., Martens, 1976). This paper focuses on interpersonal competition
among women, and thereby also draws on feminist theories in order to
attain a deeper understanding of competition among women in organi-
zations. More specifically, these theories suggest exploring competition
as a social process that is not only influenced by the immediate social
context (the organization), but also by the wider social context it is
embedded in, and also looks at competition among women holding on
to different intersecting identities (intersectionality of, e.g., race, nation-
ality, social status, age; Acker, 2006; Crenshaw, 2005; Holvino, 2010).
To identify the relevant literature for this review in a systematic and
comprehensive manner, we followed a structured process. First, we con-
ducted searches using specific key words within two major multidisciplin-
ary databases: Scopus and Web of Science (WOS). We indicated that the
search terms should appear in the title, abstract, or keywords and limited
the subject area of publications to Social Sciences; Psychology; Arts &
Humanities; Business, Management, and Accounting; Economics, Econo-
metrics and Finance; and Decision Sciences. Our broadest search terms
(“‘Competition’ AND ‘Gender’”) yielded 2021 results in English for Sco-
pus and 3211 for WOS. We then narrowed our search for the terms of
“‘Competition’ AND ‘Gender’ AND ‘Organizations’”, that yielded
182 publications for Scopus and 337 for WOS. We also searched for
the terms of “‘Competition’ AND ‘Women’ AND ‘Organizations’”.
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
To be included in our review, publications were required to relate
to intra-gender or same-sex competition among women or girls. Rele-
vance of the generated publications was evaluated based on the con-
tent of the abstracts to see the centrality of the topic. Based on our
reading, we excluded articles that did not fall within the review scope.
In total, our search yielded 141 articles that were suitable for inclu-
sion, which we coded by topic, title, journal, year of publication, type
of paper (conceptual or empirical), research strategy, and discipline.
Coding papers along these categories allowed us to gain insight into
trends in this literature. In terms of disciplines, most publications came
from journals in Economics followed by journals in Management and
Psychology. The studies reviewed used multiple research paradigms
and methods, commonly used in the study of competition. Examples
of these study paradigms are presented in Table 1.
3 | WOMEN'S COMPETITION
P RE F E R E NC E A N D P E R F O R M A N C E
To set the stage for our review on women's intra-gender competition
in organizations, some major questions arise. The first is focused on
understanding if women are “really” objectively (versus than subjec-
tively) more competitive in comparison to men? As noted, there is a
commonly held perception that women are communal and collabora-
tive, and do not tend to compete as much as men do. However, a con-
tradictory perspective is that women are highly competitive, mostly
with other women. The second question focuses on the context of
the competition and asks if women do compete, under which circum-
stances are they likely to compete with men and with each other? The
third question is do women actually demonstrate negative and abusive
behaviors of competition toward one another, or is this merely a per-
ception of women by others, due to a violation of gender expectations
that defines this behavior as competitive? To address these basic
questions and to lay the groundwork for better understanding intra-
gender competition among women in organizations, we reviewed
experimental field and lab studies that used highly controlled methods
to explore these baseline question and lay the ground for our review
of women's intra-gender competition in organizations. Although many
of these studies were not held in the organizational setting reviewing
them provided serval insights addressing our baseline questions.
First, we found that in experimental and highly controlled studies
women (and girls) tend to avoid competition and chose to enter com-
petition to a lesser extent than men (and boys) do (Gneezy
et al., 2003; Niederle & Vesterlund, 2007). Furthermore, when they
do compete, they do not perform as well in competitions as men do
(e.g., Günther et al., 2010) or as they do in non-competitive environ-
ments (Datta Gupta et al., 2005; Niederle & Vesterlund, 2011;
Price, 2008). Second, experimental research shows that women chose
to enter competition when there are more favorable conditions that
they consider as “fit” or as “safer” and “less risky” to compete in. The
review of studies suggest that these are situations in which the com-
petition context or tasks are congruent with gender expectations and
norms. For example, they favor competition with other women than
 4

TABLE 1 Perspectives on Gender Differences in Competitive Behavior.

Perspective Description Methodology Main disciplines Examples of articles

Nature/ Individuals tend to compete with same‐sex others as they Conceptual and experimental (Hormone changes during Biology Buunk et al., 2011
Evolutionary vie for greater access to mates. Gender differences in task performance) Evolutionary psychology Campbell, 2004
the expression of competitiveness are due to sex Cross, 2010
differences in costs to the reproduction system, Wozniak et al., 2014
hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, sex‐
specific selection pressures to tolerate risk, and other
evolutionary strategies. According to this perspective,
women are less willing to compete through direct
aggression due to their particular biology.
Nurture Culture and social learning are primarily responsible for Empirical – Experiments (Laboratory and field) Behavioral economics Booth & Nolen, 2012
individual and gender differences in competition Cross‐cultural studies Gneezy et al, 2008
preferences and behavior. Girls and boys are each Education psychology Kohn, 1992
socialized according to different norms to behave
differently and take on differential roles in society. For
example, boys are pushed from a young age to
participate in risky tasks (such as competitive sports) and
girls are being taught to be cautious.
Nature and Nurture An integrative approach according to which both nature Empirical Developmental Andersen et al., 2013
and nurture play a role in competitive behavior. (Laboratory and field) psychology Hess & Hagen, 2006
Competition and cooperation are social phenomena with May & Doob, 1937
a biological base in which patterns of competition are
apparent from infancy (12 months), but these behaviors
develop throughout the lifespan and mature as a product
of social interactions within one’s environment.
Similarly, some theorists explain that evolutionary norms
also interact with cultural norms to inhibit women in
expressing their aggression, since they are expected to
mask their aggressive feelings and show them in more
subtle ways. Unlike men who can publicly challenge one
another to a contest, women tend to express aggression
through social shunning and verbal (at times, indirect)
comments.
Social Women’s behaviors in competition are a product of a Conceptual and Qualitative Sociology Psychology Mavin et al., 2017
Constructivism perceptual bias rather than of an objective truth. Sheppard & Aquino,
Because competition among men in organizations is 2017.
perceived as a positive acceptable behavior, it does not
gain much attention from observers. Conversely,
competition among women is viewed negatively as it
violates social norms, which causes instances of
perceived competition among women to gain salience
and, consequently, to be judged as more frequent and
intense among observers.
KARK ET AL.

10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL. 5

with other men, they compete less when they have prior acquaintance

Booysen & Nkomo, 2010

Baikovich, A., et al., 2022
or a relationship with the other women, they choose to enter competi-

Rosette, et. al., 2018

Examples of articles
tion mostly when the tasks are gender congruent (e.g., language task

Bloch, et al., 2021

Hollis, L. P. 2018
Juan et al., 2016
vs. mathematical task), when the group size is more intimate and smal-

Dicicco, 2016
ler, and when they have information about their earlier successes. In
contrast, they refrain from competing when they have failed before,
and within a context that is egalitarian and in which women are not a
minority (e.g., Booth & Nolen, 2012; Dreber et al., 2014; Lee
et al., 2016; see summery of findings and citations in Table 2). A recent
meta-analysis on the gender gap in competition in experimental studies
Social psychology

also supports these conclusions (see Markowsky & Beblo, 2022).

Main disciplines
Feminist studies
Management

In other words, these studies show that women are not a priori
inclined to be competitive toward other women. The review of the
experimental studies did not provide sufficient insights into the third
question, of what are the manifestations of intra-gender women's
behaviors toward one another. Information on this was found in the
literature reviewed below, which focuses on women in the organiza-
tional contexts and is based mostly on qualitative data. For a summary
of empirical findings of the contextual factors that moderate women's
willingness to compete and their performance in competition see
Table 2 and Figure 1.

4 | C O M P E T I T I ON A M O N G W O M E N
WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS

The study of competition among women in organizations has receive

Conceptual and
Methodology

limited research attention, leaving the topic somewhat hidden and

Qualitative

unclear (e.g., Sheppard & Aquino, 2017). In this section, we attempt to

resolve some of the ambiguity through providing a comprehensive multi-
faceted account of extant research on women's competition in profes-
sional work settings. Research has addressed several issues regarding
among women’s different sub‐identities, the groups they

analysis aimed at understanding how the dimensions of

represent, and the social constructs attached to them.
Competition among women may portray the interaction

This perspective highlights the need for an integrated

women's intra-gender competition in organizations. Though structural

gender, race, and social status operate together to

competition over roles, promotions, and access to power are an integral

influence competition among different groups of

part of organizational life, competitive behaviors are often described in

the literature as products of perceived environmental competition. Ear-
lier works have focused on why women compete with one another in
organizations or what leads to perceived environmental competition in
organizations. Others attempted to explain the ways in which women
respond to perceived competition or competitive threat in organizations.
Below, we systematically and critically track the different compo-
nents of the competition process, starting from competition among
women across hierarchical levels, as well as the lateral dynamics
Description

between women. Then we focus on the different manifestations of

women.

these dynamics and provide a wide array of explanations offered to

understand the underlying causes of women's intra-gender competi-
(Continued)

tion. Finally, we review intersectionality research that is pertinent to

understanding how women's multiple identities influence competition
Intersectionality

outcomes and dynamics—a topic that has been largely overlooked in

Perspective

the study of women's intra-gender competition in organizations. We

TABLE 1

will demonstrate that the research in these domains is still somewhat

ambiguous and does not always rely on direct empirical support, relat-
ing to phenomenon termed as “catty,” “bitchy,” and “queen bees.”
 6

TABLE 2 Contextual Aspects of Women’s Preferences and Performance in Structural Competition.

Moderator Preferences for competition (examples) Performance in competition (examples)

Opponent’s • Women (and men) prefer to compete against women who present themselves as wanting to • Performance of women in single‐sex competitive tournaments is higher than
Gender compete (Datta Gupta et al., 2005). in noncompetitive treatments (Gneezy et al., 2003).
• Unlike men, women consider competition against a same gender peer, with whom they have a • Girls’ performance during a running competition was better when girls were
relationship, less desirable and expect that their relationship could be damaged by it (Lee et al., paired with other girls in comparison to running against boys. Boys
2016). improvement of performance in all competition settings (against boys and
• Enabling the participants to choose the gender of their co‐participant, increases women's girls) was much higher (Gneezy & Rustichini, 2004).
willingness to compete, but does not close the gender gap in competitiveness (Datta Gupta et • Women may be harsher and offer worse deals to their colleagues in intra‐
al., 2013). gender competition (Ayres & and Siegelman, 1995; Ben-Ner et al., 2004; Di
Cagno et al., 2016), attaining better performance outcomes.
• Price (2008) found that competition increased men’s performance in mixed‐
gender groups, while women performed better when the larger fraction of
the group was female.
Gendered context • Women from matrilineal societies competed more than women from patriarchal societies • Dreber et al. (2011) found no gender differences in performance among
(Gneezy et al., 2008). Swedish children in three tasks, despite these tasks being rated differently in
• Girls from girls‐only schools opted to compete more than girls from co‐ed schools (Booth & terms of how ‘boyish’ or ‘girlish’ they were by the participants themselves.
Nolen, 2012). • In contrast, Gneezy and Rustichini (2004) found that girls’ performance was
poorer while running with a competitor compared to when they ran alone,
whereas boys’ performance improved.
Task type • Girls were less likely than boys to self‐select in a competition involving a mathematical task, but • Men increased their performance in a competitive setting vs. a non‐
were no less likely than boys to self‐select in a competition involving a verbal task (Dreber et al., competitive setting in math tasks (Grosse & Riener, 2010; Günther et al.,
2014). 2010), but not in word tasks (Grosse & Riener, 2010; Günther et al., 2010;
• Women were less likely to avoid negotiation when the topic negotiated was ‘feminine’ (i.e., Wozniak et al., 2014) or maze tasks (Booth & Nolen; 2012; Wozniak et al.,
lactation) rather than ‘masculine’ (i.e., compensation) (Bear, 2011). 2014).
• Women were more likely to initiate negotiations when the context was perceived as more • Bear & Babcock (2012) found that women tended to perform better with
‘communal’, such as when they negotiate on behalf of the rights of others (Babcock et al., 2006). ‘feminine’ than ‘masculine’ negotiation/competition topics. Men
outperformed women in the ‘masculine’ version of negotiation/competition
task, the gender difference was eliminated in the ‘feminine’ version of the
task.
• Groose & Reiner (2010) found that women reduced their performance under
competition conditions in quantitative tasks, while men increased their
performance. In word tasks women and men performed the same under
competitive conditions.
• Gunther et al. (2010) found that in ‘masculine’ tasks, men increased their
performance in reaction to competitive pressure, but women did not. In ‘feminine
tasks, women but not men increase their performance in reaction to competitive
pressure.
• Conversely, Dreber et al. (2011) found (in a Swedish sample) that gendered
stereotypes related to the task did not influence girls’ (or boys’) competition
performance.
• Shurchkov and van Geen (2019) also found no significant differential gender
effect of incentives on worker productivity.
KARK ET AL.

10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL. 7

Furthermore, we attempt to understand whether what is attributed to

• Buser and Yuan (2019) found that women who competed and lost were more
performance relative to women’s performance; however, when mixed‐gender
• Invanova‐Stenzel and Kübler (2011) found that competition increased men’s
women within the study of intra-gender competition is based on

• De Paola et al. (2015) found that in a competitive setting, there were very
• Cotton et al. (2013) found that gender performance difference disappears
actual behaviors, or if is it partially or mostly a social constructed phe-

• Kuhnen and Tymula (2012) found that men expect to rank better than

slight gender differences in risk aversion, feedback provision, and self‐

teams competed against each other, no gender effect was detectable.
nomenon (see Table 3).

likely to stop competing than men who competed and lost.

4.1 | Competition across hierarchical levels
after several stages in a task (when it becomes familiar).
4.1.1 | Queen bee phenomenon—Competitive
behaviors of senior women toward junior women
Performance in competition (examples)

Much conceptual work has focused on how women higher in an organi-

women do in competitive settings. zational hierarchy treat women that have less power within the organi-
zational structure. This has led to the exploration of the so-called queen
bee syndrome. The term refers to the alleged tendency of token women
in senior positions to dissociate themselves from and block the rise of
other women within their organization (e.g., Derks, Ellemers,
et al., 2011; Derks et al., 2016; Marques, 2009; Staines et al., 1974).
confidence.

The queen bee phenomenon has been offered as one of the reasons
why women are unable to attain high prestige managerial positions
(Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011; Staines et al., 1974). Others have sug-
gested that the queen bee syndrome is not the initial cause of the pro-
• Girls (but not boys) who did not advance to the second round in the Dutch Math Olympiad were

• Different types of incentives erase gender differences in competition entry (such as a bookstore
• Gender difference in choosing to compete was shown to disappear when subjects were privy to

motion gap, but rather that it is the result of social processes (gender
• Effect of attitude and confidence in choosing to compete (Burow et al., 2017; Kamas & Preston
• When participating in dyadic teams, the gender competition gap was reduced by two‐thirds in
comparison to larger groups, independently of the effect of their opponents’ gender (Healy &

voucher for a children’s book as opposed to an incentive of cash money of the same amount;

bias and identity threat) that stem from gender inequality and, thus,
• Differences in ability do not explain the gender gap in willingness to compete (Niederle &

only perpetuate the problem (Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011).

Research on the effects of gender composition and representation
• Women prefer competing in teams rather than individually (Healy & Pate, 2011).

in different organizational ranks gives some indirect support to the

queen bee phenomenon, showing that women who are managed by
less likely to re‐enter the competition a year later (Buser and Yuan, 2019).

other women report negative experiences. For example, a study using a

large sample of 1800 working adults in the US, who were interviewed
knowledge of others’ previous performance (Wozniak et al., 2014).

via telephone, found that women who worked with a male superior
• Women prefer small teams to large ones (Hanek et al., 2016).

reported higher levels of well-being (i.e., fewer negative physical symp-

toms and less distress) compared to women who worked with a female
superior or who worked in gender-mixed superordinate contexts
(i.e., with one male and one female superior). In comparison, men
reported the highest levels of well-being when working with a gender-
mixed superordinate team (Schieman & McMullen, 2008). This may
Preferences for competition (examples)

support the notion that women, when managed by other women, may
2012; Niederle &Vesterlund, 2007)

Cassar, Wordofa, & Zhang, 2016).

perceive their management style as less legitimate and possibly more

harmful to their well-being. Another large study focusing on a relational
demography perspective showed that when the proportion of women
working above those in the lower ranking levels increased the likelihood
Vesterlund, 2007).

of women exiting the low-ranking positions but did not affect women
Pate, 2011).

in middle and top ranks. This was partially explained by the queen bee
phenomenon, suggesting that women in more powerful positions
maybe able to limit other women from attaining power in lower ranks,
(Continued)

but the higher-ranking women may have enough resources and organi-
zational power to prevent the effect of the Queen Bee Syndrome.
characteristics

characteristics

Various qualitative studies explored the premise that some

attitudes and

Motivation to

(incentives)
Performance

women achieve success and maintain power in organizations through

Moderator

compete
Gendered
TABLE 2

history

blocking other women from moving up the hierarchy (e.g., Derks,

Group

Ellemers, et al., 2011; Johnson & Mathur-Helm, 2011; Staines

et al., 1974). However, a closer look at these studies reveals that there

8 KARK ET AL.
is no definite evidence that the queen bee syndrome is a prevalent or
distinctive characteristic of senior women. For example, findings from
a study on queen bee behaviors in South Africa, among a small sample
of 25 women bank managers, showed that only eight of the women
interviewed reported that senior women lack the inclination to assist
other women aspiring to advance, and only one reported experiencing
senior women executives holding back from helping other women
advance (Johnson & Mathur-Helm, 2011). Furthermore, the bank
study, as well as others on this topic, was conducted solely among
women and did not explore similar competitive patterns among men
managers. Thus, we have no information as to whether or not senior
men engaged in similar behavior toward junior men.
Another study (Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011) alleged that their
findings provide support for the queen bee phenomenon as they
found evidence that gender bias priming led to an increase in queen
bee responses among senior policewomen with low gender identifica-
tion, whereas those with high gender identification exhibited
increased motivation to improve other women's opportunities. Impor-
tantly, queen bee responses were measured by “masculine” self-
descriptions, in-group distancing (measured with one item: “I am dif-
ferent from many other policewomen”), and denying discrimination.
One can argue that while evidence of denying gender discrimination
may be troubling, these findings need not be indicative of a queen
bee phenomenon, and certainly do not indicate that these women
would block other women's attempts to advance.
Indeed, the queen bee phenomenon has become a controversial
topic in the literature. Scholars have recently questioned whether this
syndrome still exists (or ever did). Contrary to work that focuses on
women in male-dominated organizations showing that women in
high-status positions experience threat from junior women (Staines
et al., 1974) and that token women on high-prestige teams are less
likely to select other qualified women to join their teams compared to
women who are a majority on such teams and to token women in
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
F I G U R E 1 Empirical experimental
evidence of contextual aspects that affect
women's preferences and performance in
competition.
low-prestige work teams (Duguid, 2011), several studies highlight a
different tendency among women leaders. Specifically, when women
leaders' behaviors are studied in comparison to those of men leaders,
a different picture emerges, suggesting that not only do senior women
not stand in the way of junior women, but they actually support, men-
tor, and promote them. For instance, women leaders were more likely
than men leaders to take on mentoring roles, and this mentoring was
mainly directed at other women (Catalyst, 2012; Kark & Shilo, 2007).
Another important recent study is that of Arvate et al. (2018),
who in a large-scale study in Brazil (a sample of 8.3 million organiza-
tions in 5600 Brazilian municipalities), examined the impact of women
selected for leadership roles promoting gender equality, and promo-
tion of women in public and private organizations. Results showed
that in municipalities in which a woman served as mayor, there was a
trickle-down effect evident in an increase in the number of women in
senior and middle management positions in public organizations (this
was not the case for the private organizations in these municipalities).
The researchers suggested that time and role-modeling contributed to
these results, as the results were obtained within municipalities in
which women were re-elected for a second term and were role
modeling leadership for at least two terms. Importantly, the
researchers suggested that the queen bee phenomenon may be a
myth, and stressed that women leaders behave beneficially toward
women subordinates having a positive impact on their role attainment
and promotion (Arvate et al., 2018). Additional support countering the
queen bee syndrome comes from another large study of 4000 private
sector workplaces in Norway over an 11-year period, showing a posi-
tive spillover across seven hierarchical ranks (flowing from higher-
ranking to lower-ranking women), in which the more women are
represented in higher ranks, the more other women will advance in
lower ranks (Kunze & Miller, 2017).
Similarly, other scholars exploring relational demography found
that when there was a higher representation of women in senior
 TABLE 3 Critical Assessment of Women’s Intra‐gender Competition: Contrasting Empirical Evidence*/ **.

Phenomenon/Expression Description (when occurring among women) Supporting/Conflicting Evidence Research Examples
KARK ET AL.

Indirect competition (such as gossip or ostracism) In scholarly literature: “Spiteful” (Buunk et al., 2011); Supporting Studies based on peer reports show that girls engage
“Queen Bee” (Mavin, 2008); “Female misogyny” in more indirect aggression than boys between ages
(Sasson-Levy, 2003). 6–17 (Rivers & Smith, 1994).
These findings have no bearing on the occupational
setting.
In the media and general society: “Bitchy” (e.g., Conflicting Studies based on self-reports show that adult men
Fuller, 2013). “Queen Bee” (Harris & Kramer, 2019); engage in indirect expressions of aggression to the
“Catty” (Apicella & Mollerstrom, 2017). same extent as adult women, including gossip,
ostracism, and social undermining (e.g.,
Archer, 2004; Forrest et al., 2005), or more than
adult women (Moroschan et al., 2009).
Dissociation from women and femininity Women are accused of identifying with men when Supporting Women in “masculine” roles were found to dissociate
Lack of identification with women they occupy male‐dominated positions and themselves from other women in more “feminine”
occupations. Instead of interpreting this as a by‐ roles (Sasson-Levy, 2003) to identify to a lesser
product of social comparison to similar others, extent with senior women, when there was a lower
women are criticized for not identifying with representation of women in senior positions
members of their own sex, although these may not (Ely, 1994), and to have a lower sense of their own
be relevant comparison targets in such instances. gender identity (Ely, 1994).
Junior women do not identify with, do not trust, and Women reported lower trust when they had women
are seen as critiquing senior women. supervisors in comparison to men supervisors
(Jeanquart-Barone & Sekaran, 1994)
A higher proportion of women employed at the same
job level, increased the likelihood that junior women
would show turnover intentions and exit (McGinn &
Milkman, 2013).
When the proportion of diversity at senior levels was
low, it created a competitive dynamic among
individuals socially identifying with marginalized and
stigmatized groups (Miller, 2019).
A higher proportion of female coworkers increased the
likelihood of women's exit (Leonard & Levine, 2006).
Conflicting Women and men with prestigious, male-dominated
careers, showed that the choice of the comparison
target is not only determined by one's sex, but also
by one's income. Women were significantly more
likely to make opposite-sex comparisons than men,
and that the higher a woman's income became, the
more likely she was to compare her
accomplishments (promotion, compensation,
responsibility, and influence in decision making)
predominantly with men (Steil & Hay, 1997).
Positive intra-gender relations among women (Cohen
& Huffman, 2007).
9

(Continues)

10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 (Continued)
10

TABLE 3

Phenomenon/Expression Description (when occurring among women) Supporting/Conflicting Evidence Research Examples
Women seek out other women to network with
(Ibarra, 1997).
A higher proportion of women employed at the same
job level (at the junior peer level), decreased
turnover for women (Elvira & Cohen, 2001).
Rejection of feminine characteristics and roles Rejection or disdain of feminine characteristics or Supporting Among women soldiers, some women expressed their
behaviors (e.g., wearing makeup, feminine cloths) opinion regarding the frivolity of certain feminine
often accompanied by identifying with men and behaviors (Sasson-Levy, 2003).
adopting masculine characteristics and behaviors. Women did not identify with women in traditional
They also do not identify with women in traditional “feminine” roles (Mavin, 2006b).
“feminine” roles (Mavin, 2006b; Sasson-Levy, 2002, Conflicting Women surgeons acted in a more communal manner
2003). toward other women in the nursing occupation
(Cardador et al., 2022).
Denying gender inequality and competition Women are criticized for harming women's status and Supporting Women in male-dominated work environments were
gender equality in the workplace through denying shown to deny gender discrimination (Dellinger &
gender equality (Staines et al., 1974). Williams, 2002; Webber & Giuffre, 2019).
Conflicting Women in male-dominated work environments were
shown to report being subject to gender
discrimination (Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011).
Women are more supportive of efforts to reduce
inequality in labor organizations than men (e.g.,
Huffman, 2013).
Queen bee Senior women are seen as acting in a negative manner Supporting Women university faculty members discriminated
and blocking the rise of more junior women. against women in a hypothetical job decision (Moss-
Racusin et al., 2012).
Senior women hold negative stereotypes about junior
women's commitment to their careers (Derks et al.,
2011; Ellemers et al., 2004).
Women block promotion attempts by other women
(Johnson & Mathur-Helm, 2011).
Women in male-dominated organizations have been
found to be less inclined to engage in role-modeling
behaviors (Duguid, 2011; Staines et al., 1974).
Women who worked with a male superior report
higher levels of well-being (i.e., fewer negative
physical symptoms and less distress) compared to
women who worked with a female superior
(Schieman & McMullen, 2008).
Higher proportions of women in the level above
women in lower ranking positions increased the
likelihood that they will exit the organization, but
this did not affect women in middle and top ranks
(Elvira & Cohen, 2001).
KARK ET AL.

10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 KARK ET AL.

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Phenomenon/Expression Description (when occurring among women) Supporting/Conflicting Evidence Research Examples
Conflicting Women and men with prestigious, male-dominated
careers, showed that the choice of the comparison
target is not only determined by one's sex, but also
by one's income. Women were more likely to
make opposite-sex comparisons than men, and the
higher a woman's income became, the more likely
she was to compare her accomplishments
(promotion, compensation, responsibility, and
influence in decision making) predominantly with
men (Steil & Hay, 1997).
Positive intra-gender relations among women
(Cohen & Huffman, 2007).
Women seek out other women to network with
(Ibarra, 1997).
When there was a higher proportion of women
employed at the same job level (at the junior peer
level), turnover for women was lower (Elvira &
Cohen, 2001).

*
The papers quoted here are illustrative examples and do not include all the existing literature. We also do not include all the intra‐gender competition manifestations but focus on several examples above as a
demonstration of the contrasting and ambiguous findings.
**
In this table, we demonstrate that in the attempt to shed meaning on instances of expectation violation, theorists and researchers have often amplified certain role‐expectation violations and attributed
women’s noncommunal behavior to various psycho‐social processes that allegedly occur specifically among women. Simultaneously, women’s contrasting gender‐role conforming behaviors and parallel
phenomena among men (men’s gender‐role conforming behaviors) have been ignored, thus, leading to a skewed representation of the intra‐gender competition phenomena.
11

10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

12
positions, junior women had lower turnover intentions and exited the
organization less, as well as had a higher chance of being promoted
(McGinn & Milkman, 2013), possibly due to the senior women chang-
ing the organizational culture and norms. Furthermore, women were
shown to be more supportive of efforts to reduce inequality in labor
organizations than men (e.g., Huffman, 2013).
There are two possible explanations for these contradictory find-
ings. The first is that the queen bee syndrome exists mostly in organi-
zations that are skewed, in which women are a minority; thus,
perhaps it is less prevalent now than in the past, when women's repre-
sentation in management positions was less common, and there was
less awareness of gender inequality. This implies that changes in
women's representation and gender equality policies have rendered
this phenomenon less prevalent. The second explanation is that the
queen bee syndrome may have been less pronounced than was
assumed but was more attributed to token senior women who were
held responsible for holding other women back. Either way, even if
senior women regard themselves as responsible to support the
advancement of other women (Weisul, 2017) or not (Rindfleish &
Sheridan, 2003), there is no indication that senior women block the
advancement of junior women more than senior men block junior
men or that they do so on a larger scale than behaviors aimed at pro-
moting other women.
4.1.2 | Worker bee phenomenon—Competitive
behaviors of junior women toward senior women
As opposed to the relatively pronounced research attention that the
queen bee syndrome/phenomenon has received, the complementary
form of hierarchical competition among women—which we coin the
“Worker Bee Phenomenon”—is far less researched in the literature.
This phenomenon refers to instances wherein women lower on the
hierarchical ladder do not identify with, distance themselves from, and
undermine senior women in their organization. Though studies pro-
vide evidence that women dislike and negatively evaluate the inter-
personal qualities of women who succeed in traditionally “masculine”
roles, these studies show that both men and women rate women
leaders more negatively on interpersonal measures (Parks-Stamm
et al., 2008; Phelan et al., 2008) and hold them in lower esteem than
they do male leaders (Vial et al., 2016). Studies also show that when
women in senior roles are a minority (in terms of their representation),
junior women tend to identify with them less, as well as to identify less
with their own personal gender identity as women (Ely, 1994, 1995).
Pointing to the role of trust, an earlier study indicated that
women who were supervised by other women trusted their supervi-
sors significantly less than those who were supervised by men
(Jeanquart-Barone & Sekaran, 1994). Since trust is a major component
that can affect the supervisor–subordinate relationship and organiza-
tional outcomes, if women show less trust (and identification) toward
female supervisors, this may curtail the power and efficiency of the
women who are in leadership positions. Though scholars have sug-
gested that women, more so than men, are particularly prone to
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
denigrate senior women, as they elicit a greater sense of competitive
and collective threat among junior women (e.g., Gabriel et al., 2018;
Mavin, 2006a; Sheppard & Aquino, 2017), research has only partially
supported this assumption.
Importantly, the worker bee phenomenon can be harmful to the
status and power of senior women, who may be in a somewhat risky
and precarious position as a minority within management positions.
Indeed, Mavin (2006a) argues that women tend to view and treat their
male managers as “managers” (i.e., on the basis of their role), whereas
they view and treat women managers as “women” (i.e., on the basis
of their gender status) and, hence, have different expectations toward
women managers. Furthermore, women managers are often perceived
as role deviant and are expected to comply not to managerial norms,
but rather to “feminine” norms (Zheng et al., 2018). When interacting
with other women employees, the women managers are expected to
demonstrate normative stereotypical behaviors of solidarity and of
being supportive and nurturing (Mavin, 2006a). Furthermore, they are
expected to comply to feminine norms by demonstrating “good moth-
ering” behaviors. Women employees in a banking organization testi-
fied that they will not identify with a women bank branch manager
when they know she is not a good enough mother (e.g., leaving work
very late and not attending enough to her children or knowing her
child dropped out of school), whereas they did not hold the men
branch managers to the same standard and did not care about their
parenting behaviors (Kark, 2001). To conclude, there is a considerable
amount of evidence indicating that when women do not comply and
violate “feminine” and “mothering” expectations, they can be scruti-
nized and judged harshly by junior women.
4.2 | Horizontal competition among women
We next turn to reviewing the various studies that have recognized
competition phenomena among women who do not share a defined
hierarchical relationship within an organizational structure. We refer to
these phenomena as “horizontal competition.” Specifically, the litera-
ture has highlighted how women compete with women who represent
“others” on the basis of their “feminine” or “masculine” characteristics,
or on the basis of their different occupational roles or their social-
identity categories (Caucasian women vs. women of color).
4.2.1 | Competitive behavior toward “feminine”
women
Scholars have used the term female misogyny to connote the phenom-
enon in which women, consciously or subconsciously, engage in deni-
gration of “feminine” women at work. Misogyny can be defined as
dislike, contempt for “feminine” characteristics, ingrained prejudice
against other women, and undermining of women in the workplace
(e.g., Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011; Derks, Van Laar, et al., 2011;
Margolis, 2017; Sasson-Levy, 2002, 2003). Scholars have suggested
that female misogyny is the result of identifying with men and their

KARK ET AL.
misogynistic view of women and feminine characteristics (Ely, 1994,
1995; Sasson-Levy, 2002, 2003). Women in “masculine” roles also
tend to identify less with women in traditional “feminine” roles
(Sasson-Levy, 2002). Within this frame, lack of socializing with women
at work and personal endorsement of masculinity is often viewed as
evidence of a tendency among women in male-dominated environ-
ments to devalue “feminine” characteristics, denounce “feminine”
behavior, adopt “masculine” behavior, and distance themselves from
other women as a result of identifying with men and adopting their
misogynistic views of women. Furthermore, earlier works highlight
that women's contempt for femininity largely ignores gender inequal-
ity and that women's distancing behavior can undermine the status of
women in the organization (Sasson-Levy, 2003). For example, Sasson-
Levy's (2003) qualitative study tracked the attitudes of women sol-
diers who served in traditionally “masculine” roles in the Israeli mili-
tary and showed how in various ways, they dissociated themselves
from other women in less “masculine” and prestigious roles.
4.2.2 | Competitive behavior toward agentic
women
It is well-established in the literature that women who are perceived
as agentic or non-communal are penalized in organizations by both
men and women (e.g., Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Eagly &
Karau, 2002; Rudman et al., 2012; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). It has
been suggested that agentic women are subject to greater penaliza-
tion from other women than from other men, due to the tendency to
compete with same-gender others who pose a threat in competition
over organizational resources (Gabriel et al., 2018; Sheppard &
Aquino, 2017). Furthermore, women's limited access to organizational
resources may increase competition among women in comparison to
intra-gender competition among men (Gabriel et al., 2018;
Sheppard & Aquino, 2017). This idea has recently gained empirical
support from a series of studies conducted by Gabriel et al. (2018) in
which women reported experiencing more incivility from female col-
leagues than from male colleagues. Importantly, agentic women's
reports reflected more pronounced experiences of incivility instigated
by female colleagues. However, this finding should be interpreted
with caution in light of research that suggests that individuals pay
greater attention to the negative behavior of same-gender others,
who they then evaluate less favorably and that women's aggressive
behavior is especially salient, and it is evaluated more negatively than
that of men (Khan & Lambert, 1998).
4.2.3 | Competitive behavior toward women from
different occupational status groups
The relationship among women from different occupational status
groups is challenging. In a study by Sasson-Levy (2003), women who
were in more “masculine” military roles and occupations (semi-combat
roles) expressed competition and negative emotions, and belittled
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
13
women with more “feminine” military roles (administrative/secretarial
roles) to gain more status. When women in higher status professions
want to choose a collaborative route toward women in lower-status
“feminine” occupations, they are challenged to prove that they are
not competitive and do not view themselves as having higher status,
as well as show compassion and solidarity toward them. For example,
a recent study based on interviews with 45 female surgeons found
that they faced a challenge in status-leveling when interacting with
women in occupations lower down the institutional hierarchy
(e.g., nurses; Cardador et al., 2022). Specifically, the women surgeons
reported that they felt that the nurses had gendered expectations for
greater status equivalence with women surgeons (but not from men
surgeons). The women surgeons were aware of risks associated with
alienating the nurses, understanding that if nurses did not find them lik-
able, they could undermine the surgeons' work tasks and harm their
professional reputation. Thus, the women surgeons needed to invest
more in their relationships with the nurses then did the men surgeons,
for example by refraining to rely on their formal authority as surgeons
to facilitate cooperation from nurses. The women surgeons did this by
displaying status-leveling behaviors (e.g., help the nurses do their clean-
ing up, make themselves excessively available to nurses for questions,
and show a willingness to learn from the nurses) to ease status tensions.
These behaviors had both positive implications (e.g., higher cooperation,
solidarity, and enhanced work efficiency), but also negative implications
(e.g., increased work demands that were time consuming and cost emo-
tional effort) in women surgeons' day-to-day work. This could poten-
tially have broader performance and career consequences for women
surgeons that would not affect male surgeons. To conclude, competi-
tion (or collaboration) among women across different occupational sta-
tuses is yet another challenge due to more controversial expectations
toward higher status women as compared to higher status men.
4.2.4 | Competitive behavior among women from
different social identity groups
Research on intersectionality demonstrates that inequalities among
different sub-groups of women (i.e., different social identity groups)
lead to inequalities in the outcomes of structural competition among
women in organizations and also leads to distancing behavior toward
members of the “out-group.” These processes will be described sepa-
rately, following our review of the mainstream literature on women's
intra-gender competition in organizations.
4.3 | Manifestations/expressions of competition
among women
Scholars have often operated under the assumption that women
express competition differently than men, due to either biological or
societal restrictions (Andersen et al., 2013; Buunk et al., 2011). These
assumptions led scholars to explore gender differences in the expres-
sion of intra-gender competition, which we discuss next.

14
4.3.1 | Indirect aggression (“cattiness”)
Expressions of aggression are often considered competitive behaviors
as they are conceptualized as attempts to denigrate superior others
who elicit a competitive threat (e.g., Buunk et al., 2011; Sheppard &
Aquino, 2017). Various scholars have asserted that men tend to
exhibit competition through direct aggression (i.e., verbal or physical
assaults; Cross, 2010), whereas women refrain from competing
through direct aggression, either due to biological limitations (risk to
their reproductive system; Campbell, 2004) or due to conformity to
cultural expectations of femininity (Mavin, 2006a, 2006b, 2008).
Scholars who emphasize societal influences on women's competitive
behavior have explained that because competition among women is
perceived as illegitimate (due to societal expectations that women
should exhibit communality and solidarity), women internalize their
inability to express their competitiveness and anger openly and
directly and that they are prohibited from succeeding at the expense
of other women (e.g., Mavin, 2008). Thus, when women experience a
competitive threat, there is no socially acceptable way for them to
express their aggression toward that threat, and they are compelled
to channel their aggression into less overt competitive behaviors such
as gossip (regarding age, appearance, dress, weight, references to per-
sonal abilities, accusing women of using their sexuality to advance,
etc.) or ostracism. Though women were found to engage in indirect
forms of competition, various self-report studies have found that men
and women do not differ in expressions of indirect aggression that
include gossip, ostracism, and social undermining (Archer, 2004;
Forrest et al., 2002, 2005; Forrest & McGuckin, 2002). Other research
has shown that adult men utilize more indirect aggression than adult
women (Moroschan et al., 2009).
Nonetheless, women's indirect competitive tactics have received
condemnation in the form of negative labeling such as “spiteful”
(Buunk et al., 2011, p. 45) or “catty” (Livingston et al., 2014), whereas
indirect competitive behavior exhibited by men has not been con-
demned and is referred to with neutral rather than negatively
valanced language (e.g., “male tactics”; Buunk et al., 2011, p. 45). This
discriminatory application of negative labels reflects and perpetuates
the bias whereby the very same forms of competitive behavior are
perceived as normal among men, but as perverse and unhealthy when
carried out among women.
4.3.2 | Direct competition (“bitchy”)
There are situations in which women compete directly with other
women by acting aggressively toward them, having vocal clashes, and
denigrating them. These manifestations are mostly reflected in popu-
lar press articles and are portrayed as competitive and harmful. Mavin
(2008) shows how token women on teams and female bosses are pre-
sented in a negative light and are blamed for “selling other women
out” and putting actual obstacles in their way. Such instances, and the
publicity they gain, were interpreted by scholars as a means to stabi-
lize the gender status quo by thrusting women against each other and
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
weakening their individual and group power (Mavin, 2008;
Sheppard & Aquino, 2013). The tendency to call attention to struggles
among famous women is another example of limiting women's direct
competition, through a public discourse that scrutinizes this behavior.
4.3.3 | Dissociating from other women and from
femininity
Female misogyny is thought to manifest rejection of “feminine” charac-
teristics and behaviors, at times also accompanied by adopting “mascu-
line” behaviors and social distancing from women. These are alleged
result from dissociating from one's gender identity and identifying with
men due to a belief that “masculine” qualities will enable one to achieve
higher status and power in the organization (e.g., Ely, 1994, 1995;
Sasson-Levy, 2003). Within this prism, scholars have framed certain
behaviors as indications of women's attempts to distance themselves
from women with “feminine” characteristics or from women holding
roles that are perceived as having lower status as a form of intra-gender
competition (Derks, Van Laar, et al., 2011; Faniko et al., 2021; Staines
et al., 1974). Specifically, it has been suggested that women purposely
refrain from socializing with other women (e.g., women's support
groups or informal social meetups) and from taking part in women's ini-
tiatives, avoid being associated with women, emphasize differences
between themselves and other women, and refrain from forming
friendships with other women at work (Derks, Van Laar, et al., 2011).
Such distancing behaviors are thought to be purposeful acts carried
out by women with the intent of dissociating from their gender group,
which is the out-group in many organizations (England, 2010; Irvine &
Vermilya, 2010). The successful and “masculine” women who exhibit
these distancing behaviors are at times presented as opportunists who
dissociate from their gender group to pursue individual mobility (Derks,
Van Laar, et al., 2011). Though some studies provide cross-sectional and
qualitative data that point to a possible association between serving in
“masculine”-type roles and low gender identification, as well as “mascu-
line” behavior (e.g., Derks, Van Laar, et al., 2011; Sasson-Levy, 2003), suf-
ficient evidence supporting the perception that these behaviors are
related to negative attitudes regarding femininity or that they are related
to avoidance of women is lacking. These findings can also be interpreted
as showing that women in male-dominated positions do not participate
in women-only events due to their need to network with individuals who
pose a greater competitive threat (i.e., other men in their positions) than
they have with a desire to dissociate from women. However, there are
also studies countering this, showing closeness and distance reduction
behaviors among women (Cardador et al., 2022) and that women seek
out other women with whom to network (Ibarra, 1997) and maintain pos-
itive relationships (Cohen & Huffman, 2007).
4.3.4 | Denying gender and social inequality
Some scholars have framed behaviors of ignoring, denying, and dis-
missing other women and gender inequality debates as threats to

KARK ET AL.
women's ability to gain power and access in organizations. In other
words, women in positions of power who do not take active measures
to advance women's status in organizations are portrayed as threats
to women's collective power and ability to advance and thrive in orga-
nizations. For example, Staines et al. (1974) asserted that women in
power positions may not question the weakened status of women in
their organization and continue to perpetuate the organizational cul-
ture in which they were successful. Thus, successful women are per-
ceived and presented not only as harmful to other women's career
success through their alleged competitive behavior (Dobson &
Iredale, 2006) but also as harmful to women's status and gender
equality in the workplace. Women in male-dominated work environ-
ments were shown to deny gender discrimination (Webber &
Giuffre, 2019), but they reported being subject to gender discrimina-
tion (Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011). This form of denial can be seen as
a form of competition of senior women who do not pave the way for
other women. Another form of denial related to women's intra-gender
competition is denying relative privilege in the workplace compared
to women from different identity groups (e.g., Canham & Maier, 2018;
Hooks, 1984). We review this in more detail in the section on
intersectionality.
4.4 | Causes of competition among women
We next present the variety of explanations suggested in the litera-
ture to understand why women compete with one another in
organizations.
4.4.1 | Gender imbalance, tokenism, and identity
threat
Various scholars have suggested that different forms of competition
among women (e.g., queen bee and female misogyny) are socially con-
structed phenomena rooted in the way gender order is embedded in
organizations, so that women are in subordinated positions and have
less access to resources and power. Scholars have suggested that the
“masculine” organizational context, and the gender inequalities char-
acterizing it, contribute to women's intra-gender competition,
women's lack of intra-gender support, and their undermining behav-
iors (Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011; Derks et al., 2016; Derks, Van Laar,
et al., 2011; Ellemers et al., 2004; Johnson & Mathur-Helm, 2011).
Specifically, gender imbalance in organizations is thought to fuel
women's intra-gender competition through two mechanisms: token-
ism and identity threat. The phenomenon of “tokenism” suggests that
the mere size of a minority group, and their proportion within the
organization or in a specific managerial rank, can have a significant
effect on the social experiences of its members (e.g., Ely, 1995;
Kanter, 1977, 1987). To this day, women hold fewer powerful posi-
tions in organizations (Catalyst, 2012) and earn lower wages than men
(McKinzy & Company, 2020). This demographic representation signals
that there is limited room for women at the top and more limited
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15
resources for women in organizations (Ely, 1994, 1995). It is empiri-
cally established that limited access to resources bolsters competition
and hostility among members of the in-group (Duguid, 2011;
Griskevicius et al., 2009). Therefore, it has been suggested that
women compete with each other, more than men do, due to their
minority status and limited opportunities (e.g., such as to become a
top manager or to hold a political position when there is designation
for a single woman), which creates a competitive environment among
them (Gabriel et al., 2018; Sheppard & Aquino, 2017).
Regarding the experiences of the few women at the top, their
“token status” is thought to afford them greater visibility and exposure
(as they stand out), which effectively limits their actions (Kanter & Stein,
1980). This high visibility forces women to display loyalty to the major-
ity group members (i.e., men), resulting in showing non-supportive
behaviors toward other women. Moreover, the social identity threat,
argued to be experienced by women in male-dominant organizations, is
thought to lead to unsupportive behavior among women, such as segre-
gation, avoidance of intra-gender socializing, and maintenance of gen-
der stereotyping (Ellemers, 2001; Kanter, 1977). This dynamic has also
been shown for other minority groups, termed as the “crabs in the bar-
rel” effect, suggesting that when the proportion of diversity at senior
levels is low, it creates a competitive dynamic among individuals in
socially marginalized and stigmatized groups (Miller, 2019).
Further supporting the role of the social structure and gender
composition of the organizations, earlier studies show that when the
proportion of women represented in senior roles is high, it has a posi-
tive effect on junior women, and resulted in less turnover (Elvira &
Cohen, 2001; McGinn & Milkman, 2013) and more promotional
opportunities (McGinn & Milkman, 2013). Signaling to junior women
they could succeed in the firm. Moreover, when there was a higher
proportion of women employed at the same job level (at the junior
peer level), turnover for women was also lower (Elvira &
Cohen, 2001), possibly signaling more safety, stability, and opportuni-
ties. However, in other studies on junior women's peer representa-
tion, findings showed the opposite trend, increasing the likelihood
that a junior woman would exit and decrease the likelihood of female
promotion, possibly due to competition (Leonard & Levine, 2006;
McGinn & Milkman, 2013). McGinn and Milkman (2013) suggest that
this may signal to women a competitive dynamic over limited promo-
tion opportunities stating that “Junior professionals perceived that
they were “fungible goods,” easily replaced by peers.” (p. 23). This
suggests that relational demography and the representation at each
organizational level, can have a significant impact on women's sense
of competition and opportunities.
Social identity is the aspect of an individual's self-image that is
derived from the social groups to which he/she belongs (Tajfel &
Turner, 1978). Women who work in organizations where women and
“femininity” are not valued may experience the environment as a
threat to their gender identity. In some cases, women may choose
such an environment if they have low gender identity or have devel-
oped a low level of gender identification because they consider their
identity to threaten their possibility of career success (Ely, 1995).
Based on this assumption, scholars explored the “queen bee,” “worker

16
bee,” and female misogyny behaviors in “masculine” work environ-
ments in women-only samples (e.g., police force; Derks, Van Laar,
et al., 2011, the military; Sasson-Levy, 2003), and subsequently, indi-
cated that women in these roles and contexts had a low gender iden-
tification and behaved in stereotypically “masculine” ways. Scholars
have suggested that the adoption of “masculine” behaviors and the
report of low gender identity within women's roles can be understood
as resulting from the gender discrimination they experienced in their
careers and as a strategy for succeeding in gender-biased work envi-
ronments (Derks, Van Laar, et al., 2011; Sasson-Levy, 2003).
In another study, Derks, Ellemers, et al. (2011) relied on senior
women managers' retroactive reports of their gender identity upon
entering an organization to explain differences in the effects of gen-
der discrimination on senior women's gender identity and “queen
bee” behaviors down the road (at the time of the study). Unsurpris-
ingly, results of their study showed that women demonstrating more
“queen bee” behaviors (i.e., more “masculine” self-descriptions,
increased stereotypical perceptions of other women's career commit-
ment, and more differentiation of personal career commitment from
that of other women), were the women who initially reported having
lower gender identity upon entering the workforce. However, while
denying gender inequality or discrimination can be seen as an indica-
tor of the “queen bee” phenomenon and misogyny, it is also likely to
occur among senior women who self-report experiencing workplace
gender discrimination, which could be a contributing factor to their
current competitive behaviors toward other women.
Within the frameworks of tokenism and identity threat, women's
intra-gender competition is perceived as a response to gender
inequality and difficulties experienced by women in male-dominated
organizations, rather than as products of women's inherent qualities
(e.g., Derks, Ellemers, et al., 2011; Derks et al., 2016; Kanter & Stein,
1980; Mavin et al., 2017). These frameworks shift blame from women
and place responsibility for increased competition among them on the
gendered context of the work environment, but this may still cast a
negative light on women's interpersonal behaviors and make infer-
ences regarding their role in perpetuating gender inequality. Impor-
tantly, these negative inferences are based on assumptions that
mostly lack empirical support.
4.4.2 | Social comparison
Social comparison theories (SCT) suggest that intra-gender competition
is more common than inter-gender competition for both women and
men (Buunk et al., 2011; Sheppard & Aquino, 2017). This is rooted in
the basic assumption of SCT that people have a tendency to compare
themselves with others who are similar to themselves. According to
SCT, and as evidenced in a number of studies, individuals are driven by
a positional bias in which they are more concerned with attaining a bet-
ter position relative to (similar) others than with obtaining greater objec-
tive resources (Buunk & Ybema, 1997; Hill & Buss, 2006). Therefore,
individuals constantly engage in social comparison with similar others
as they are the most relevant targets for gauging one's position and
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
competing over valued resources (whether the competition be over
greater access to mates; within the prism of evolutionary psychology)
or over greater access to obtainable resources (within the prism of
social-cognitive psychology). Accordingly, superior others from the
same identity group will likely elicit a competitive threat and the emo-
tion of envy. Benign envy will motivate individuals to narrow the gap
by raising themselves to the level of the other (through self-improve-
ment), whereas malicious envy will motivate individuals to narrow the
gap by bringing the other down and possibly acting in an uncivil manner
(Miller, 2019; Van de Ven et al., 2009).
With regard to women's competition in organizations, scholars
have suggested that members of the same gender are perceived as
more appropriate targets for social comparison because they are per-
ceived as more similar and often occupy similar roles within organiza-
tions (Duffy et al., 2012; Festinger, 1954; Gibson & Lawrence, 2010;
Major, 1994). Therefore, they offer a benchmark and relevant informa-
tion as to one's prospective success in the organization (Buunk & Van
der Laan, 2002), and to assess personal standards of performance or
career progress (Miller, 2019). Considering that women tend to occupy
similar roles and positions in organizations, women often tend to com-
pare themselves to other women. Researchers have suggested that
women in organizations are likely to perceive high ranking women (who
have attained powerful roles) and agentic women (who are more likely
to compete for access to organizational resources due to their tendency
to self-promote) as competitive threats to their personal likelihood of
attaining access to limited resources available to women in organiza-
tions, and are therefore more likely to engage in undermining behaviors
toward these women (Gabriel et al., 2018; Sheppard & Aquino, 2017).
Indeed, Parks-Stamm et al. (2008) found that men and women per-
ceived successful women as unlikeable and hostile when the target
woman was described in a manner that conveyed gender-neutral positive
characteristics. They also found that when participants were blocked
from being able to ascribe negative interpersonal characteristics to the
successful target women, as positive descriptions conveyed communal
positive characteristics (rather than gender neutral ones in the aforemen-
tioned condition) in otherwise equivalent descriptions, participants' self-
rated competence was reduced for women but not men. Furthermore,
when provided with positive feedback about their own potential to suc-
ceed (thus reducing identity threat), women reduced their negative reac-
tions to successful women, and this reduction was not associated with a
reduction in self-rated competence. Together, these findings support the
theory that women may make negative inferences about successful
women as a self-protective strategy, to mitigate the effect of competitive
threat stemming from social comparison. However, this does not provide
evidence of this phenomenon occurring in the field, nor of negative
behaviors toward successful women.
4.4.3 | Gender norms, stereotypes, and expectation
violation
Cognitive biases related to gender norm violations can lead to skewed
mental representations of women's intra-gender competition.

KARK ET AL.
According to social role theory, individuals are expected to conform
to the traits associated with the various social roles they occupy
(Biddle, 1979). Expectations regarding a particular social role stem
from prescriptive beliefs about traits and behavior that members of a
certain social category (e.g., women, managers, and African-Ameri-
cans) ought to have and display (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Fiske &
Stevens, 1993), as well as proscriptive beliefs about traits and behav-
iors these members ought not to have or exhibit (Rudman et al., 2012).
With regard to the expectations associated with the gender role of
women, communal attributes (e.g., warm and supportive) are prescrip-
tive for women, whereas agentic attributes (e.g., assertive, competi-
tive, and self-promoting) are proscribed for women and prescribed for
men (Kidder & Parks, 2001; Rudman & Glick, 2001). In addition, pro-
scriptions include relatively negative qualities that are prohibited for
one gender, but tolerated for the other (Rudman et al., 2012). For
example, negative “feminine” traits (e.g., weakness and naivety) are
tolerated for women, but prohibited for men and negative “mascu-
line” traits (e.g., controlling, aggressive, and arrogant) are tolerated for
men, but prohibited for women (Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Impor-
tantly, role-congruity theory posits that when members of society
behave in ways that are incongruent with gender-role expectations,
they are penalized by other members of society (men and women)
and are subject to negative evaluations (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002;
Rudman et al., 2012; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004).
With regard to women in organizations, several studies show that
women are subject to a backlash effect in the form of negative evalua-
tions regarding their interpersonal attributes and skills not only when
they exhibit negative “masculine” traits (such as aggression;
Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Kark & Eagly, 2010), but also when they
violate gender norms by merely succeeding in male-dominated or
“masculine” roles (Heilman et al., 2004; Parks-Stamm et al., 2008) or
by merely exhibiting agency (e.g., through dominant, assertive, or self-
promoting behavior; e.g., Kark et al., 2012; Zheng et al., 2018, 2018).
Moreover, these negative evaluations were shown to produce profes-
sional penalties, such as reduced chances of being hired or receiving a
promotion (Heilman et al., 2004; Phelan et al., 2008).
Studies that illuminate this backlash effect indicate that women
who exhibit agency or ascend the corporate ladder are likely to be
perceived as competitive, self-promoting, unsupportive, and even hos-
tile (Parks-Stamm et al., 2008) even if they do not display such behav-
iors. Though prior works show that women who violate gender norms
and expectations elicit negative responses from members of both gen-
ders (e.g., Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008), Sheppard and Aquino (2017)
suggest that women observers may be particularly sensitive to other
women's gender-norm violations for two reasons: First, studies sug-
gest that individuals are more sensitive to gender norm violations
committed by in-group members than those committed by out-group
members (e.g., Khan & Lambert, 1998). Thus, women will be particu-
larly resentful toward women who allegedly lack communality and
demonstrate competition. Second, there is an additional expectation
for women to exhibit solidarity (Sheppard & Aquino, 2017). Thus,
when women perceive other women as self-promoting and unsuppor-
tive, these infractions elicit feelings of resentment due to violation of
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
17
gender norms of communality and solidarity by not actively support-
ing other women, or even worse, competing with them.
4.4.4 | Fallacy and social construction of intra-
gender competition
There is ample evidence suggesting that much of what has been
framed in the literature as women's intra-gender competition phe-
nomena and manifestations are perceived as such due to social-
cognitive biases. First, the research discussed in the previous
section shows that women who violate gender role expectations are
perceived to have poor interpersonal skills (unlikable, cold, hostile)
and to possess negative agentic traits, regardless of direct evidence of
those effects (e.g., Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013). The above studies
suggest that people automatically attribute agency and lack of com-
munality to women who succeed in male-dominated roles. They dem-
onstrate that women need not even exhibit agency to be condemned
for being competitive toward and unsupportive of other women. Fur-
thermore, these women may be accused of malicious intent, perceived
as hindering other women, or putting their personal agenda ahead of
collective solidarity when they do not actively mitigate these concerns
by engaging in readily apparent supportive behavior toward other
women (mentoring, actively advancing other women, etc.). Therefore,
it stands to reason that this bias contributes, at least in part, to the
notion of women having negative competitive motivations toward
each other.
Second, it is likely that the violation of gender role expectations
fuels the perception that women are highly competitive with each
other in the workplace. Studies show that people are particularly sen-
sitive and pay greater attention to expectation violations (Ito
et al., 1998; Van Berkum et al., 2009). We call this the salience bias.
Thus, it stands to reason that greater attention is paid to gender role
expectation violations that lead to the appearance of competitive
behavior (even in the absence of evidence of such behavior) among
women. Conversely, because agency and competitive or aggressive
behaviors are expected of (and prescribed for) men (Archer, 2004;
Kray et al., 2001; McAndrew, 2009), men's intra-gender competitive
behavior will not garner much attention or leave a lasting impression.
Indeed, despite evidence that incivility strikes both men and women
at work (e.g., Buunk et al., 2011) and evidence that both men and
women exercise indirect aggression such as gossip, ostracism, and
social undermining (Archer, 2004; Buunk et al., 2011; Forrest
et al., 2005), researchers have highlighted these behaviors as “charac-
teristic” of women (e.g., Chesler & Parry, 2001).
Third, the violation of gender role expectation can also fuel the
perception that women are particularly cruel in competition with one
another in the workplace. According to role congruity theory and
expectancy violation theory, perceived gender norm violations not
only stand out to observers, but also incur more extreme evaluations
than when the behavior is expected (Kernahan et al., 2000). Thus,
when women act in their own self-interest (even without deliberately
competing with other women) or display direct or indirect aggressive

18
behavior (as a competitive strategy), these behaviors are perceived
and portrayed as disturbing interpersonal behaviors that reflect nega-
tive social behavior among women. However, the very same behavior
among men does not make a strong impact, as these behaviors are
expected of men and are judged with less scrutiny and are deemed as
less extreme. We call this the extremity bias. This bias with which gen-
der role expectation violations are perceived enhances the negative
attributions toward women's competition. Indeed, no syndromes have
been coined to describe competition or incivility among men despite
evidence that men engage in the very same competitive behaviors
toward each other. In fact, competition among men is seen as accept-
able or as even positive behavior (Sheppard & Aquino, 2017).
To summarize, the ideas that women undermine one another
more than men and engage in more dysfunctional competition
(e.g., catty, bitchy, and female misogynistic) are likely products of the
salience and extremity biases. Due to the perceived greater severity of
intra-gender competition among women, such instances are described
with more negatively valanced terminology and are granted more
attention than the equivalent phenomenon among men
(Mavin, 2008). This, in turn, enhances the stigma that women com-
pete with one another in problematic ways even though evidence
suggests that men are equally or more competitive (Moroschan
et al., 2009).
Although such uncivil behaviors may occur in reality to some
degree, given the evidence of opposite behaviors (support, mentoring,
etc.) among successful women, it is not likely that such occurrences
alone can explain the prevalence of the negative perception toward
women's intra-gender competition. Interestingly, however, a recent
replication of a study first published by Ellemers et al. in 2004 showed
that the phenomenon termed queen bee still prevails (Faniko
et al., 2021). Female academics in advanced roles were found to be
more likely than their male counterparts to underestimate the career
commitment of younger women at the beginning of their academic
careers. Furthermore, both men and women academics, at advanced
career stages, used more “masculine” terms to describe themselves
than scholars at early career stages. The researchers argue that this
represents a response pattern in which successful women, who were
able to advance to senior positions, emulate the masculinity of the
work environment. However, they suggest that at this stage (2021),
the term “self-group distancing” may be more useful and appropriate
than “queen bee effect.” Thus, given the strong evidence that implicit
stereotypes influence people's attributions and actions (Latu
et al., 2011; Rudman & Glick, 2001), and recent sensitivity to the use
of terms, it stands to reason that the belief that women tend to com-
pete with each other in a negative manner still prevails, regardless of
real evidence.
4.5 | Intersectionality
We now wish to extend the discussion of causes and explanations for
women's intra-gender competition in the workplace to those implied
by a research field that is not typically called upon in, or associated
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
with, the discussion of women's intra-gender competition at work.
Mainstream research on competition among women treats all women
as a singular demographic category and does not examine the issue of
different sub-groups of women and their intersecting identities. Inter-
sectionality theory is a stream of feminist literature focused on the
relationships among women from diverse identity sub-groups, provid-
ing a useful theoretical lens for understanding additional possible
causes of intra-gender competition among women in organizations
and the inequalities that influence it, while suggesting that they are
not competing on a leveled field. While this stream of literature does
not specifically highlight interpersonal competition among women per
se, it does inform our understanding of the ways in which the relation-
ships between sub-groups could affect intra-gender competition. We
present below two different mechanisms through which inequality
among various groups of women can stir up conflict and prevent fair
competition.
4.5.1 | Relative privilege across different identities
Although all women may share the experience of sexism in organiza-
tions, not all women are equally disadvantaged, as some women expe-
rience additional forms of discrimination due to other aspects of their
identity. For instance, women of color2 live with the fear of racist acts
being carried out against them, whereas White women are not subject
to such fears or experiences (McRae, 2004). With regard to intra-
gender competition, women of color are at risk of being subject to
multiple forms of discrimination that puts them at a disadvantage in
attaining roles and promotions. Black, Hispanic, and Asian minorities
tend to experience various forms of discrimination, including occupa-
tional segregation and lower pay (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).
While White women, who share the same skin color as most male
leaders, tend to focus solely on gender discrimination and have the
privilege of ignoring the intersection effects of gender and race,
women of color need to examine whether incidences of discrimination
against them are related to their gender or to their race (and other
categories) in order to be able to respond accordingly (Sanchez-
Hucles & Davis, 2010). In addition, women belonging to the hege-
monic group (e.g., White majority) often have more social power
within organizations and are better connected to people in positions
of power (McRae, 2004).
As a result of these inequalities, the social positioning of women
of color affects their willingness to cooperate with the agendas of
White women or to compete with them (Canham & Maier, 2018;
Holvino, 2010). For example, Holvino (2010) emphasized the differ-
ence between the perspective of women of color and that of White
women due to differences in status and life experience, suggesting
that racism leads many women of color to prioritize the dimension of
race over the dimension of gender. Thus, their racial identity serves as
“Women of color” is a term used to express commonalities in the status and experiences of
2
Native American, Latino, Asian, and Black/African-American women who are racial-ethnic
minorities in the United States (Holvino, 2010). Here, we use this expression to denote
different minority groups of women from around the globe.

KARK ET AL.
the starting point for self-definition, and regardless of gender, women
of color join men of color in their struggle for anti-racism—an agenda
that takes precedence over a gendered agenda shared with White
women.
Another way in which intersectionality dynamics may affect com-
petition among women is evident in the ways in which women from
the majority status group mask their privilege through emphasizing
the seemingly collective gender-inequality issue as a source of disad-
vantage in a patriarchal society and downplaying the significance of
other aspects of disadvantage. Scholars have differed in their perspec-
tives of White women's awareness of racial structure. While some
scholars describe White woman as unaware of the race structure, as it
does not play a salient or readily apparent role in their personal lives
(Nash, 2008), others have offered a more critical assessment accord-
ing to which White women mask how racism affects non-White
women. This masking can take the form of refusing to acknowledge
racism, despite being aware of it (McRae, 2004), or it can take more
overt forms such as White women actively manipulating other women
into joining their battles while masking existing agenda differences
(Hooks, 1984). So long as majority status women refuse to acknowl-
edge their privileges and act as though competition is carried out on a
level playing field, they will hold on to their social/organizational
power in competition situations. Furthermore, minority status women
will find it difficult to collaborate and show solidarity with majority
status women, who are often unable to contain the anger of women
of color and, thus, tend to avoid communication on these issues (Bell
et al., 2003; McRae, 2004).
4.5.2 | Stereotypes of intersecting identities
Research suggests that stereotypes of intersecting identities affect
women's chances of succeeding in structural organizational competi-
tion. Examining how racial stereotypes may interact with gender ste-
reotypes to create different attitudes toward management
candidates, Dicicco (2016) found that, when vying for leadership roles,
Black women may escape repercussions for exhibiting dominant and
assertive behaviors. Black men and women exhibiting agentic and
dominance behaviors were rated more favorably than White women,
but less favorably than White men who exhibited the same behaviors.
Similarly, Livingston et al. (2012) found that dominant Black women
leaders did not create resistance among people to the same extent as
dominant White women leaders did. More specifically, white women
leaders (and Black men) received lower ratings when expressing domi-
nant rather than communal behaviors, while Black women leaders
(and White men) were not penalized for exhibiting dominant behavior.
These studies provide initial evidence for differential outcomes for
women of different backgrounds competing for the same roles and
promotions.
In addition, women's stereotypical perceptions of other women
may strengthen and create perceived environmental competition
among women belonging to different identity groups. For example,
White women are perceived stereotypically as passive, weak, fragile,
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19
and powerless (Bell & Nkomo, 2001). Bell and Nkomo (2001) suggest
that White women who internalize these stereotypes of weakness,
passivity, and powerlessness will experience difficulty recognizing the
power of the privilege gained by their skin color. When women of
color internalize stereotypes attributed to them, of being strong,
assertive, and nurturing, they have a hard time identifying with the
sense of helplessness and vulnerability attributed to white women. It
is also difficult for women of color to perceive White women, who are
stereotyped as weak, as those who are actually strong, and it is diffi-
cult for white women to perceive women of color as weak and vulner-
able. These stereotypes are likely to affect the interactions of White
women and women of color in the context of intra-gender competi-
tion, as well as limit their ability to collaborate and show solidarity. In
conclusion, imbalances among different social groups can influence
the tendency to compete, as well as the ways how and reasons why
women from different social identity groups compete, and how they
are perceived by others for such competitive behaviors.
5 | T H E GE N D E R C O M P E T I T I O N
PARADOX: A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR
I N T E G R A T I N G TH E R E S E A R C H O N
C O M P E T I T I ON A M O N G W O M E N
Two opposing assumptions are discernable in the literature on
women's intra-gender competition. On the one hand, the research
on women's competition outside the organizational context that
we reviewed in the first part of the paper highlights how, com-
pared to men, women are relatively non-competitive
(Markowsky & Beblo, 2022). This stream of literature further high-
lights the importance of the context and how women allow them-
selves to become more competitive and feel legitimacy to compete
in contexts that are more aligned with gendered norms and stereo-
types (e.g. Booth & Nolen, 2012; Dreber et al., 2014). On the other
hand, much of the work focused on women's relationships in orga-
nizations highlights the competitive (e.g., “catty” and “bitchy”)
behavior of women, the “queen bee” and “worker bee” phenom-
ena, and female misogyny. Our review of the literature, as we dem-
onstrate below, shows that women in organizations do not enact
more intra-gender competition than men do. However, their com-
petitive behavior is perceived more negatively, and they can be
penalized for competing.
One can explain the discrepancy in the duality of the depictions
of women's competitive behavior as the result of different demands
placed on women in the work versus non-work environment. In soci-
ety, women are expected to conform to expectations related to their
social role as it pertains to their social identity (gender, race, age, etc.).
However, in organizations, conforming to one's social role as a woman
also involves conforming to expectations regarding one's occupa-
tional/corporate identity (businesswomen, executive, leader, etc.), as
well as to other aspects of one's social identity (gender, race, etc.).
Thus, in organizations, women must contend with the double-bind of
opposing expectations, whereas, in wider-society, they must grapple

20
with fewer or less pronounced dual expectations. In turn, when
women engage in behaviors necessary for their advancement (such as
networking with men) or when women in male-dominated roles do
not readily demonstrate their solidarity with other women, they are at
risk of being perceived negatively.
Moreover, this competitive dynamic is enhanced in certain orga-
nizations such as those that are “masculine”-typed. In order to
advance in organizations, women must select structural competition
over roles and promotions and try to outperform their colleagues.
However, the clear-cut expectations of women to conform to gender-
role expectations (i.e., for communality and solidarity) cause women
to feel guilty for harboring natural feelings of comparison and of trying
to minimize competitive threat. Moreover, women may opt to mini-
mize competitive threats through indirect, subtle, and hidden ways in
order to minimize the risk of penalization for violating the expectation
that they behave in kind and sensitive ways toward others and avoid
conflict and aggressive behavior. Furthermore, when women appear
to violate expectations for solidarity, even through omission, the strik-
ingness of their behavior garners attention and scrutiny. This, in turn,
leads to resentment and negative labeling of competitive behavior
among women. Indeed, the literature does not support the conclusion
that women in organizations tend to compete with one another more
than men. However, women are scrutinized and perceived more nega-
tively when they display competitive behavior (e.g., Mavin, 2008;
Sheppard & Aquino, 2013). Moreover, rather than viewing women's
intra-gender competitive behavior as a normal product of social com-
parison, it tends to be seen as a behavior that perpetuates divisions
between women rather than allowing alliances and connections
(Mavin, 2008).
Building on our systematic and critical review, we now introduce
a dialectical paradoxical approach in order to better understand the
dual expectation of women to simultaneously show competition and
cooperation in intra-gender relationships (see Figure 2). As defined
above, the paradox literature focuses on competing demands that
exist simultaneously and persist over time, which are contradictory,
yet interrelated (Smith & Lewis, 2011). According to this perspective,
effectiveness is dependent on tackling the tension of the contradic-
tory demands that are embedded in the individual or the system
(e.g., Garud et al., 2011; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Women in organiza-
tions are faced with multiple paradoxes, and attending to them can
allow women to be able to perform well and avoid backlash (Kark
et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2018, 2018). To guide future research as
well as the development of practical recommendations, we suggest a
paradox lens to explain how women can respond to the tensions
posed by pervasive demands for both competition and solidarity. In
doing so, we specifically draw on the construct of coopetition—a term
used to describe cooperative competition (Raza-Ullah et al., 2014;
Yami et al., 2010).
Relatively recently, the concept of coopetition was introduced to
describe the complex reality in which cooperation and competition
co-exist concurrently among individuals and parties within organiza-
tions and between organizations as a consequence of interdepen-
dence (Raza-Ullah et al., 2014; Yami et al., 2010). It is defined as “the
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
simultaneity of competition and cooperation while creating value”
(Gnyawali et al., 2006; Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton, 2018) and as “a
situation in which two individuals or parties need to invest effort into
a joint task (i.e., cooperation) while ultimately the success of one is
detrimental to the success of the other (i.e., competition)”
(Landkammer & Sassenberg, 2016, p. 1671). Coopetition is a hybrid
activity that embraces traditionally opposing and mutually exclusive
behaviors of collaboration and competition (Walley, 2007). The idea
of coopetition, that has entered the awareness of organizational
researchers, can serve as a port of entry for understanding the com-
plex dynamics women must grapple with in organizations. Applying
this idea to women's struggle can offer a way to understand the ten-
sion that stems from the paradoxical demands for competition and
cooperation. According to the coopetition literature, there is a need
to simultaneously navigate these demands (Gnyawali & Ryan
Charleton, 2018).
When the magnitude of both competition and cooperation are
weak or moderate, embracing the two is relatively simple. However,
it can be most challenging when competition or cooperation are
both strong, leading to one suppressing the other (Bengtsson &
Kock, 2000). For example, if competition is strong, the self-interest
of one party can hinder mutuality, but if competition is weak, it may
reduce novelty and efficiency. When there is equal emphasis on
each element, and they are balanced, it can allow participants to
generate positive outcomes from coopetition and also enable the
benefits of one element to reduce the costs of the other
(Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton, 2018). Through applying these com-
plex ideas to intra-gender competition, balancing these forces
simultaneously can enable women to uphold the conflicting
demands of competition and cooperation, opening a range of novel
directions for further study.
In line with this, according to the paradox literature, tensions and
competing demands can activate either a dilemma mindset or a para-
dox mindset. A mindset is a mental frame that individuals and groups
use to process information and interpret it in ways that can guide
their behavior. A dilemma mindset refers to a frame of reference in
which individuals interpret situations as “either-or” alternatives and
choices (Miron-Spektor et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2018). With regard
to intra-gender dynamics among women in organizations, within a
dilemma mindset, women will feel compelled to choose one of two
dichotomies: competition or collaboration, as they perceive these two
courses of action as opposites that are mutually exclusive. Conversely,
a paradox mindset refers to the ability to accept the simultaneous
existence of opposing forces and the tension among them without
feeling compelled to choose one over the other, that is, a “both-and”
framework. Within such a mindset, the contradictions between com-
petitiveness and collaboration can be seen as complementary or
mutually reinforcing (Kark et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2018). This type
of mindset can enhance creativity (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011) and
affords women a perspective that embraces the tension, allowing
them to simultaneously compete and collaborate in creative ways.
Thus, a paradox mindset can allow women to actively manage the par-
adoxes, and possibly gives rise to coopetition by enabling wider and
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL. 21

F I G U R E 2 A paradoxical-coopetition
framework.
Note: The figure depicts the intra-gender
competition, as well as intra-gender
collaboration (solidarity). When
competition and collaboration are present
simultaneously, there are manifestations
of coopetition. This simultaneous
dynamic can be enacted on a continuum,
and is presented by the arrows in the
middle, and not as a 2
2 figure. Both
competition and collaboration can be
enacted at the individual and/or the
group level. The levels can work in the
same direction (competition at the
individual and group level), in different
directions (competition at the group level
and solidarity at the individual level), or
only one level can be present.

more varied creative ways of competing, while simultaneously uphold-
ing the values of sisterhood and solidarity.
We also suggest that the coexistence of these processes do need
not occur on the same level of analyses (e.g., individual, team, group,
and organizational); rather, it is possible that a particular individual
may compete with their co-workers on an individual level (e.g., over
promotions or salary increase), but collaborate with the very same co-
workers on group assignments. Applying this idea to women's intra-
gender competition implies that women can strive for their personal
goals through competition on the individual level, and also achieve
collective goals as a group through cooperation on the team or group
level. For example, women can compete with each other over a pro-
motion, but at the same time act on behalf of other women to
increase the number of women who will gain higher positions. Fur-
thermore, women can compete among themselves on the individual
level while simultaneously taking into account the intersectionality of
identities. By doing so, they can acknowledge the possible privileges
they may have in the competition, not masking and overlooking them,
but rather through supporting and giving more power to women com-
petitors from less privileged groups. This can also be the case
between women from different status occupations (e.g., combat and
engineering vs. secretarial and teaching) or from different hierarchies
within an organization (e.g., supervisor vs. subordinate status). Thus,
when women in “masculine” occupations and in positions of power
compete for their roles, but simultaneously strengthen women in
more stereotypically “feminine” roles and in subordinate positions by
showing them respect and collaborating with them, all can gain more
organizational power.
6 | IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FU T U R E R E S E A R C H
6.1 | Addressing biases and utilizing a paradoxical-
coopetition research lens
First, it is interesting to focus on the constructs of paradox and coope-
tition with regard to women's simultaneous competition and collabo-
ration in organizations. The ideas of the paradox mindset need to be
better explored at the individual and group levels. Thus, it is worth-
while to study how women are able to hold on to such a paradoxical
mindset, and if they can compete and collaborate at the same time. A
paradox mindset can be a chronic attribute, but it can also be trig-
gered as a situationally flexible characteristic (Kark et al., 2016; Zheng
et al., 2018, 2018). This raises the question if it is possible to elicit a
paradox mindset among women in an experimental or a natural orga-
nizational setting in a field experiment. This mindset may enable
women to better compete, as well as collaborate simultaneously in
organizations. However, considering that our review shows that other
women—who are observers of the competition—and other men have
a major role in shaping the attributions and the actual behaviors of
women, it is interesting to also understand the ability of men, women
in HR, managers, and other individuals to hold on to a paradox mind-
set regarding women's competition and collaboration. Thus, manipu-
lating others' ability to see women's competition in a more complex
way and to embrace paradoxical tensions may allow them not to
frame competing women as “catty” or “bitchy,” but rather to under-
stand the biases and complex simultaneous expectations. This in turn

22
can contribute to more positive evaluations of these women, as well
as encourage them to compete and show solidarity.
Furthermore, future research should explore intra-gender compe-
tition in parallel with intra-gender cooperation in order to provide a
broader and less negatively biased view of women's (and men's) inter-
personal relationships in organizations and possible mechanisms of
coopetition. Even though most studies on coopetition have focused
on the organizational level (Walley, 2007), exploring coopetition and
how it is displayed in different settings among women in “masculine”
business organizations, feminist organizations, and other environ-
ments and organizational climes (inclusive, competitive, etc.) is timely.
It is also of interest to add an intersectionality perspective to the
study of paradox and intra-gender competition in an attempt to
uncover the ways in which women from different occupations and
different social identity groups are able to compete and collaborate
simultaneously (Cardador et al., 2022). For example, the role of differ-
ent occupations of women (e.g., women in hi-tech and engineering
vs. women in HR and therapeutic professions), and how power rela-
tionships and status within these occupations affect their interaction
within the same organization, enhancing simultaneous paradoxical
dynamics of both competition and collaboration, is a most viable field
of future research. Moreover, studying the complexity of intra-gender
competition among women in organizations across different dimen-
sions of identity (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.), while taking
into account the dynamics of the intersection of identities and how
this can affect the ways in which women compete and understand
other women's competitiveness is most important in order to enable
women to also collaborate across diverse identities. In order to change
the gender-biased discourse, to combat cognitive biases, and to better
understand intra-gender competition in organizations, future research
should examine intra-gender competition among men (causes, mani-
festations, perspectives, etc.), as well as inter-gender competition,
which is a wide and common phenomenon in organizations, in which
women in higher ranks are less represented and mostly compete
against men.
Another interesting future research direction is discourse
research aimed at uncovering the ways in which language is used by
scholars and researchers in ways that reflect, shape, and perpetuate
negative socially constructed perceptions of women. Such an explora-
tion can shed light on the role of scholars and popular press writers
on the perpetuation of the ways we think about women and competi-
tion. For example, Buunk et al. (2011) assert that: “Women seem to
be more spiteful, and talk behind others' backs, ridicule others, spread
rumors, or make indirect allusions. Typical male tactics are to perma-
nently assign others to new tasks, to stop talking to someone, and to
assign tasks that violate others' self-esteem” (p. 72). This use of lan-
guage does not portray reality, rather it contributes to shaping stereo-
types toward women's competition.
Lastly, paradoxical feelings toward coopetition are related to cul-
tural beliefs about differences in the ways we perceive and construct
women's competition and collaborations within hierarchical and hori-
zontal relationships. Future research should therefore explore how
cultural gender-role expectations and backlash against women's
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
competitive behavior in different countries and across different orga-
nizational structures, along with the prescribed norms for women to
exhibit communality and solidarity should be explored. Moreover, the
effects on women's choices to compete to pursue career advance-
ment, as well as explore feelings of guilt and joy among successful
women in different cultures should be further studied.
6.2 | Addressing a contextual perspective and
methodological gaps
It appears that no blanket statement can be made about women's
competitive preferences, choices, behavior, or performance. Rather,
when trying to understand or predict women's competition, the first
section of our review suggests that one must consider the context as
it relates to the task, and to the immediate and more distant environ-
ment within which the task is undertaken (as shown in Table 2). How-
ever, as research on intra-gender competition among women in
organizations has largely been conducted in the field and through
qualitative research methods rather than through experimental
designs, we cannot draw definitive conclusions concerning modera-
tors of these forms of competition. Questions remain as to how much
of it involves actual manifestations and behaviors or whether it par-
tially or mostly is an interpretation (social construction) that behaviors
are competitive. Nonetheless, the reviewed research indicates possi-
ble boundary conditions and contextual variations that should be con-
sidered or tracked in future research. These include investigating the
following:
a. Intersectionality: Exploring the effects of the intersection of multi-
ple identities on women's (and men's) intra-gender competition
and cooperation, rather than focusing on a single gender dimen-
sion, in order to account for the complex dynamics among women
belonging to different identity groups (e.g., Dicicco, 2016;
Hollis, 2018; Roscigno, 2007).
b. Masculine contexts: Focusing on the moderating roles of “mascu-
line” organizational contexts and of temporal changes in the repre-
sentation of women in senior positions and in social norms, that
now place greater importance on inclusion, diversity, and gender
equity is timely. Given that influential scholars have suggested that
as more women enter senior positions and the demographics of
organizations change, the relationships among women will change
as well (Ely, 1995; Schieman & McMullen, 2008). Future research
should investigate whether intra-gender competition patterns
change over time, over the career-course of women, within the
life-cycle of organizations, as well as over historical decades.
c. The role of men: Another factor that should be taken into account
in future research is the role of men, since women's intra-gender
competitive attitudes and behavior cannot be disentangled from
the influence of men. Men's indirect influence on women's intra-
gender competition is apparent both through the effect of their
presence as observers during a structured competition among
women, and through the effect of their presence in women's

KARK ET AL.
natural environment (regardless of whether they are present during
the actual competitive situation). Third parties involved in conflicts
and competition were found to have a role in promoting competi-
tion or cooperation and to play a role in brokerage in groups and
among others (Halevy et al., 2019; Nakashima et al., 2017). As
such, the role of men in women's intra-gender competition should
be further explored in future research.
d. Culture: Finally, the wider culture within which the organization
and its members are embedded impact the relationship dynamics
among women, as well as their competition preferences and per-
formance. However, variables related to culture have yet to
receive direct research attention in the study of women's intra-
gender competition in organizations. Aside from Gneezy et al.
(2008), who studied gender differences in competition preference
and behavior in matrilineal versus non-matrilineal societies, no
studies have directly examined the effects of cultural differences
on women's inter- or intra-gender competition. This is especially
important since studies show that cultural differences impact the
cooperative orientation among individuals of different ethnicities
working together. Individuals whose sub-culture is more collectiv-
istic (Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics) exhibit a more cooperative ori-
entation to a task, whereas individuals whose sub-culture is more
individualistic (Anglos) exhibit a more individualistic orientation
(Cox et al., 1991). In work groups of ethnical diversity, there were
higher norms of cooperation and less competition than among
homogeneous Anglo groups, mostly when situational cues were
favored. Thus, future research should explore how cultural norms
of collectivism and individualism, as well as other cultural aspects
(e.g., tight vs. loose; Gelfand et al., 2006), can impact women's
intra-gender competition across and within cultures.
Future studies should also address the lack of overlap between
the methodologies utilized by the two main streams of studies on
women's intra-gender competition. The stream of quantitative experi-
mental studies usually compares the tendencies of men and women
to enter competition and their performance in competition, while
looking into inter-gender and intra-gender competition patterns
(e.g., Niederle & Vesterlund, 2007; Vugt et al., 2007). Conversely, the
second stream of works uses qualitative data and case studies, and
focuses on relationships and interpersonal dynamics among women in
the natural organizational context (e.g., Hurst et al., 2017; Mavin
et al., 2014, 2014). Given that these two types of studies are under-
taken by researchers from different fields of thought and that the
assumptions and questions that underlie these different types of stud-
ies are diverse, there is little to no crossover in methodologies. This
leads to a fragmented and limited understanding of women's competi-
tion. Conducting more qualitative research on structural competition,
as well as more quantitative research in natural settings and organiza-
tional research, and certainly studies that would incorporate both
methods could advance insights on women's intra-gender competition
beyond what the literature has to offer today. Furthermore, more
complex temporal processes and dynamics within-person and among
women should be designed, as well as field experiments to understand
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
23
the possible effects of competition. Thus, more creative studies and
methods are needed.
7 | IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The coopetition and paradox literatures provide a good starting point
for conceptualizing how to create interventions that can support
women in their struggle with the tensions created by the seemingly
contradicting expectations of competition and collaboration. Legiti-
mizing women's intra-gender competition alongside collaboration
through promoting a paradoxical mindset is likely to reduce women's
experience of guilt and shame for competing with other women and
increase their willingness to engage in competition more directly.
However, inducing a cognitive shift to a paradox mindset among
women alone will not shield them from being scrutinized and penal-
ized, so long as others still view these behaviors as inappropriate for
women. Rather, interventions for enhancing a paradox mindset of
coopetition must target all organizational members in the quest to
change perceptions of the legitimacy for women to both compete and
cooperate. Solely targeting women sends the message that women
are responsible for the negative ways in which they are perceived and
for their unequal treatment in the labor market.
Indeed, a recent set of studies showed that when women were
presented as being able to tackle gender inequality by themselves
through “leaning in” and making internal changes of self-improvement
(Sandberg, 2015), they were later perceived as responsible for the for-
mation of gender inequality. However, when a systemic, organization-
wide solution was offered for tackling the problem of gender inequal-
ity, people attributed the cause of the problem to the system,
(e.g., organizational norms), and not to women themselves (Kim
et al., 2018). Thus, when addressing this topic, the discussion must
move from a women-based discussion (e.g., “women are mean to each
other”, “women are queen bees”) to a wider discussion of organiza-
tional and socio-cultural structures that are socially constructed and
embedded in context (e.g., Harris & Kramer, 2019).
Gender-differences in competitiveness are regularly used to
explain unequal market outcomes (e.g., Buser et al., 2014; Niederle &
Vesterlund, 2011). The mainstream organizational literature still places
responsibility for workplace and labor market inequalities on women,
due to their low trait competitiveness, rather than placing even partial
responsibility on organizations for the ways in which their structures
can contribute to unequal labor market outcomes (Swab &
Johnson, 2018). Organizations that want to reduce redirected and
concealed competition among women must legitimize explicit expres-
sions of competition among women by calling attention of all organi-
zational members to aspects of the system that give rise to hostile
competition among women (e.g., low representation of women in
executive management positions, penalizing women for exhibiting
“masculine” behavior) to reduce it. Thus, by farming competition
among women as a systemic socially constructed issue, women will
not be taken aback by intra-gender competition and will not be judged
overly harshly.

24
8 | C O N CL U S I O N
To reach a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of competition
among women within organizations, we suggest based on a review of
the literature that future research should adopt a more integrative,
paradoxical, and multi-methodological approach. Moreover, it is nec-
essary for future research to take into account contextual factors
impacting intra-gender competition (type of task, hyper masculine
organizations, organizational culture, etc.), the intersecting identities
and occupations, and the dual pressures on women to compete and
collaborate. Greater sensitivity to the socially constructed aspects of
competition, highlighted in this review, can allow women, men, and
organizations to interpret incidents of competition among women less
negatively and avoid the assumption that gender differences, such as
women's allegedly inherent intra-gender competitiveness, are the
underlying cause of workplace gender inequality.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
We would like to thank the Associate Editor Marie Dasborough and
three anonymous reviewers for their excellent feedback and rich
insights. We are also grateful to Ruth Blatt and Fabiola Gerpott for
their generous and insightful input and to Noam Shmallo for her
assistance.
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST ST AT E MENT
There is no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were gen-
erated or analysed during the current study.
ORCID
Ronit Kark https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0506-9683
RE FE R ENC E S
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organiza-
tions. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464.
Amanatullah, E. T., & Tinsley, C. H. (2013). Punishing female negotiators
for asserting too much … or not enough: Exploring why advocacy
moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110–122.
Andersen, S., Ertac, S., Gneezy, U., List, J. A., & Maximiano, S. (2013). Gen-
der, competitiveness, and socialization at a young age: Evidence from
a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Review of Economics and Statis-
tics, 95(4), 1438–1443.
Apicella, C., & Mollerstrom, J. (2017, February 24). OpinionjWomen do like
to compete—Against themselves. The New York Times. https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/02/24/opinion/sunday/women-do-like-to-
compete-against-themselves.html
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A
meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–322.
Arvate, P. R., Galilea, G. W., & Todescat, I. (2018). The queen bee: A myth?
The effect of top-level female leadership on subordinate females. The
Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 533–548.
Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bar-
gaining for a new car. The American Economic Review, 304–321.
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
Babcock, L., Gelfand, M., Small, D., & Stayn, H. (2006). Gender differences
in the propensity to initiate negotiations. In D. D. Cremer, M. Zeelen-
berg, & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.). Social psychology and economics
(pp. 239–262). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baikovich, A., Wasserman, V., & Pfefferman, T. (2022). ‘Evolution from the
inside out’: Revisiting the impact of (re)productive resistance among
ultra-orthodox female entrepreneurs. Organization Studies, 43(8),
1247–1271.
Bartunek, J. M., Walsh, K., & Lacey, C. A. (2000). Dynamics and dilemmas
of women leading women. Organization Science, 11(6), 589–610.
Bear, J. (2011). “Passing the buck”: Incongruence between gender role and
topic leads to avoidance of negotiation. Negotiation and Conflict Man-
agement Research, 4(1), 47–72.
Bear, J. B., & Babcock, L. (2012). Negotiation topic as a moderator of gen-
der differences in negotiation. Psychological Science, 23(7), 743.
Bell, E. L., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways: Black and white
women forging paths in corporate America. Harvard Business School
Press.
Bell, E. L. E., Meyerson, D., Nkomo, S., & Scully, M. (2003). Interpreting
silence and voice in the workplace: A conversation about tempered
radicalism among black and white women researchers. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 39(4), 381–414.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks—To
cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management,
29(5), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00067-X
Ben-Ner, A., Kong, F., & Putterman, L. (2004). Share and share alike?
Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of
giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 581–589.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectaions, identities and behaviors. Aca-
demic Press.
Bloch, K. R., Taylor, T., Church, J., & Buck, A. (2021). An intersectional
approach to the glass ceiling: Gender, race and share of middle and
senior management in US workplaces. Sex Roles, 84(5), 312–325.
Booth, A., & Nolen, P. (2012). Choosing to compete: How different are
girls and boys? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(2),
542–555.
Booysen, L. A., & Nkomo, S. M. (2010). Gender role stereotypes and requi-
site management characteristics. Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 25, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011048164
Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead?
Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace.
Psychological Science, 19(3), 268–275.
Burow, N., Beblo, M., Beninger, D., & Schröder, M. (2017). Why do women
favor same-gender competition? Evidence from a choice experiment.
In Working paper DIW discussion papers, no. 1662 provided in coopera-
tion with: German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin)
(pp. 1–46).
Buser, T., Niederle, M., & Oosterbeek, H. (2014). Gender, competitiveness,
and career choices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1409–
1447. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju009
Buser, T., & Yuan, H. (2019). Do women give up competing more easily?
Evidence from the lab and the Dutch math Olympiad. American Eco-
nomic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(3), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.
1257/app.20170160
Buunk, A. P., Pollet, T. V., Dijkstra, P., & Massar, K. (2011). Intrasexual
competition within organizations. In G. Saad (Ed.). Evolutionary psychol-
ogy in the business sciences (pp. 41–70). Springer.
Buunk, B. P., & Van der Laan, V. (2002). Do women need female role
models? Subjective social status and the effects of same-sex and
opposite sex comparisons. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale.
Buunk, B. P., & Ybema, J. F. (1997). Social comparisons and occupational
stress: The identification-contrast model. In Health, coping, and well-
being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 359–388).
Campbell, A. (2004). Female competition: Causes, constraints, content,
and contexts. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 16–26.

KARK ET AL.
Canham, H., & Maier, C. (2018). Women bankers in black and white:
Exploring raced, classed and gendered coalitions. Social Dynamics,
44(2), 322–340.
Cardador, M. T., Hill, P. L., & Salles, A. (2022). Unpacking the status-
leveling burden for women in male-dominated occupations. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 67(1), 237–284.
Cassar, A., Wordofa, F., & Zhang, Y. J. (2016). Competing for the benefit of
offspring eliminates the gender gap in competitiveness. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), 5201–5205.
Catalyst (US). (2012). Women in male-dominated industries and occupations
in US and Canada. https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-
male-dominated-industries-and-occupations/
Chesler, M. A., & Parry, C. (2001). Gender roles and/or styles in crisis: An
integrative analysis of the experiences of fathers of children with can-
cer. Qualitative Health Research, 11(3), 363–384.
Cohen, P. N., & Huffman, M. L. (2007). Working for the woman? Female
managers and the gender wage gap. American Sociological Review,
72(5), 681–704.
Cotton, C., McIntyre, F., & Price, J. (2013). Gender differences in repeated
competition: Evidence from school math contests. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 86, 52–66.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cul-
tural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group
task. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 827–847.
Crenshaw, K. (2005). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Poli-
tics, and Violence against Women of Color (1994). In R. K. Bergen, J. L.
Edleson, & C. M. Renzetti (Eds.). Violence against women: Classic papers
(pp. 282–313). Pearson Education.
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Jour-
nal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 1–27.
Cross, C. P. (2010). Sex differences in same-sex direct aggression and
socio-sexuality: The role of risky impulsivity. Evolutionary Psychology,
8(4), 779–792.
Datta Gupta, N., Poulsen, A., & Villeval, M. C. (2005). Male and female
competitive behavior - experimental evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal,
05–12.
Datta Gupta, N., Poulsen, A., & Villeval, M. C. (2013). Gender matching
and competitiveness: Experimental evidence. Economic Inquiry, 51(1),
816–835.
De Paola, M., Gioia, F., & Scoppa, V. (2015). Are females scared of compet-
ing with males? Results from a field experiment. Economics of Educa-
tion Review, 48, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.
2015.06.002
Dellasega, C. (2007). Mean girls grown up: Adult women who are still queen
bees, middle bees, and afraid-to-bees. John Wiley & Sons.
Dellinger, K., & Williams, C. L. (2002). The locker room and the dorm room:
Workplace norms and the boundaries of sexual harassment in maga-
zine editing. Social Problems, 49(2), 242–257.
Derks, B., Ellemers, N., Van Laar, C., & De Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organi-
zational cultures create the queen bee? British Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 50(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X525280
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016). The queen bee phenomenon:
Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The
Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2015.12.007
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., Ellemers, N., & De Groot, K. (2011). Gender-bias
primes elicit queen-bee responses among senior policewomen. Psycho-
logical Science, 22(10), 1243–1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797611417258
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Rela-
tions, 2(2), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200204
Di Cagno, D., Galliera, A., Güth, W., Pace, N., & Panaccione, L. (2016).
Make-up and suspicion in bargaining with cheap talk: An experiment
controlling for gender and gender constellation. Theory and Decision,
80(3), 463–471.
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
25
Dicicco, E. C. (2016). The boundary conditions of backlash for black women:
When black women escape backlash for agentic and dominant behavior in
the workplace. (Doctorial dissertation) Retrieved from etda.libraries.
psu.edu.
Dobson, R., & Iredale, W. I. L. L. (2006). Office queen bees hold back
women's careers. The Sunday Times.
Dreber, A., Von Essen, E., & Ranehill, E. (2011). Outrunning the gender
gap—Boys and girls compete equally. Experimental Economics, 14(4),
567–582.
Dreber, A., von Essen, E., & Ranehill, E. (2014). Gender and competition in
adolescence: Task matters. Experimental Economics, 17(1), 154–172.
Duffy, O. K., Iversen, L., & Hannaford, P. C. (2012). The impact and man-
agement of symptoms experienced at midlife: A community-based
study of women in Northeast Scotland. BJOG: An International Journal
of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 119(5), 554–564.
Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts
or inhibitors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 104–115.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice
toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573.
Ellemers, N. (2001). Individual upward mobility and the perceived legitimacy
of intergroup relations.
Ellemers, N., van den Heuvel, H., de Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A.
(2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential
commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 43, 315–338.
Elvira, M. M., & Cohen, L. E. (2001). Location matters: A cross-level analy-
sis of the effects of organizational sex composition on turnover. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 44(3), 591–605.
Ely, R. J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social
identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 203–238.
Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women's social constructions
of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3),
589–634.
England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender &
Society, 24(2), 149–166.
Faniko, K., Ellemers, N., & Derks, B. (2021). The Queen bee phenomenon
in academia 15 years after: Does it still exist, and if so, why? British
Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 383–399.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Rela-
tions, 7(2), 117–140.
Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What's so special about sex? Gender
stereotyping and discrimination. Sage Publications, Inc.
Flory, J. A., Gneezy, U., Leonard, K. L., & List, J. A. (2018). Gender, age, and
competition: A disappearing gap? Journal of Economic Behavior & Orga-
nization, 150, 256–276.
Forrest, S., Eatough, V., & Shevlin, M. (2005). Measuring adult indirect
aggression: The development and psychometric assessment of the
indirect aggression scales. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 84–97.
Forrest, S., & McGuckin, C. (2002). Adult indirect aggression: Do men ‘catch
up’ with women in using indirect aggression?. http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/
eprint/13694
Forrest, S., McGuckin, C., Lewis, C. A., McDaid, C. J., Navratil, M., & Mak, I.
(2002). The Richardson conflict response questionnaire among northern
Irish and Czech students: A cross-cultural comparison of direct and indi-
rect aggression. http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/23520
Fuller, M. (2013). Working with bitches: Identify the eight types of office
mean girls and rise above workplace nastiness. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Gabriel, A. S., Butts, M. M., Yuan, Z., Rosen, R. L., & Sliter, M. T. (2018). Fur-
ther understanding incivility in the workplace: The effects of gender,
agency, and communion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 362.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). Complexity arrange-
ments for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organi-
zation Studies, 32(6), 737–767.

26
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and impor-
tance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(6), 1225.
Gibson, D. E., & Lawrence, B. S. (2010). Women's and men's career refer-
ents: How gender composition and comparison level shape career
expectations. Organization Science, 21(6), 1159–1175.
Gneezy, U., Leonard, K. L., & List, J. A. (2008). Gender differences in com-
petition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Forth-
coming in. Econometrica.
Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competi-
tive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Eco-
nomics, 118(3), 1049–1074. https://doi.org/10.1162/
00335530360698496
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2004). Gender and competition at a young
age. American Economic Review, 94(2), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.
1257/0002828041301821
Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. (2006). Impact of co-opetition on
firm competitive behavior: An empirical examination. Journal of Man-
agement, 32(4), 507–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206305284550
Gnyawali, D. R., & Ryan Charleton, T. (2018). Nuances in the interplay of
competition and cooperation: Towards a theory of coopetition. Journal
of Management, 44(7), 2511–2534. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206318788945
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Gangestad, S. W., Perea, E. F.,
Shapiro, J. R., & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as
an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96(5), 980.
Grosse, N. D., & Riener, G. (2010). Explaining gender differences in competi-
tiveness: Gender-task stereotypes. Work Paper,. Friedrich Schiller Univ.
Günther, C., Ekinci, N. A., Schwieren, C., & Strobel, M. (2010). Women
can't jump? An experiment on competitive attitudes and stereotype
threat. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75(3), 395–401.
Halevy, N., Halali, E., & Zlatev, J. J. (2019). Brokerage and brokering: An
integrative review and organizing framework for third party influence.
Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 215–239.
Hanek, K. J., Garcia, S. M., & Tor, A. (2016). Gender and competitive pref-
erences: The role of competition size. Journal of Applied Psychology,
101(8), 1122.
Harris, A. B., & Kramer, A. S. (2019). Women are mean to each other – Or so
we are told. Chief Learning Officer – CLO Media. https://www.
chieflearningofficer.com/2019/10/23/women-are-mean-to-each-
other-or-so-we-are-told/
Healy, A., & Pate, J. (2011). Can teams help to close the gender competi-
tion gap? The Economic Journal, 121(555), 1192–1204. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02409.x
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties
for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed
tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416
Hess, N. H., & Hagen, E. H. (2006). Sex differences in indirect aggression:
Psychological evidence from young adults. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 27(3), 231–245.
Hibbard, D. R., & Buhrmester, D. (2010). Competitiveness, gender, and
adjustment among adolescents. Sex Roles, 63, 412–424.
Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of self-esteem. In Self-
esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives
(pp. 328–333).
Hollis, L. P. (2018). Bullied out of position: Black women's complex inter-
sectionality, workplace bullying, and resulting career disruption. Jour-
nal of Black Sexuality and Relationships, 4(3), 73–89.
Holvino, E. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and
class in organization studies. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(3),
248–277.
Hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. South End Press.
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
Huffman, M. L. (2013). Organizations, managers, and wage inequality. Sex
Roles, 68(3–4), 216–222.
Hurst, J., Leberman, S., & Edwards, M. (2017). The relational expectations
of women managing women. Gender in Management: An International
Journal., 32(1), 19–33.
Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in mana-
gerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 91–102.
Irvine, L., & Vermilya, J. R. (2010). Gender work in a feminized profession:
The case of veterinary medicine. Gender & Society, 24(1), 56–82.
Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative
information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in
evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75(4), 887–895.
Ivanova-Stenzel, R., & Kübler, D. (2011). Gender differences in team work
and team competition. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5),
797–808.
Jeanquart-Barone, S., & Sekaran, U. (1994). Effects of supervisor's gender
on American women's trust. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(2),
253–255.
Johnson, Z., & Mathur-Helm, B. (2011). Experiences with queen bees: A
South African study exploring the reluctance of women executives to
promote other women in the workplace. South African Journal of Busi-
ness Management, 42(4), 47–55.
Juan, M. J. D., Syed, M., & Azmitia, M. (2016). Intersectionality of
race/ethnicity and gender among women of color and white women.
Identity, 16(4), 225–238.
Kamas, L., & Preston, A. (2012). The importance of being confident; gen-
der, career choice, and willingness to compete. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 82–97.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life. In The gen-
der gap in psychotherapy (pp. 53–78). Springer.
Kanter, R. M. (1987). Men and women of the corporation revisited. Man-
agement Review, 76(3), 14.
Kanter, R. M., & Stein, B. (1980). A tale of "O": On being different in an orga-
nization. HarperCollins Publishers.
Kark (2001). Gender differences in transformational leadership, Followers'
identifications, and effects on Followers' perceptions. (Doctoral
Dissertation),. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Kark, R., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender and leadership: Negotiating the lab-
yrinth. In Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 443–468).
Springer.
Kark, R., Preser, R., & Zion-Waldoks, T. (2016). From a politics of dilemmas
to a politics of paradoxes: Feminism, pedagogy, and women's leader-
ship for social change. Journal of Management Education, 40(3),
293–320.
Kark, R., & Shilo, R. (2007). 'Mirror, Mirror on the wall who is the best
mentor of them all'? Mentoring in the Israeli academia. Megamot, 4,
707–735.
Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny
and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between
gender-role, transformational leadership and identification. The Leader-
ship Quarterly, 23(3), 620–640.
Kernahan, C., Bartholow, B. D., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2000). Effects of
category-based expectancy violation on affect-related evaluations:
Toward a comprehensive model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
22(2), 85–100.
Khan, S., & Lambert, A. J. (1998). Ingroup favoritism versus black sheep
effects in observations of informal conversations. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 20(4), 263–269.
Kidder, D. L., & Parks, J. M. (2001). The good soldier: Who is s (he)? Journal
of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 22(8), 939–959.
Kim, J. Y., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2018). Lean in messages increase
attributions of women's responsibility for gender inequality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 974.

KARK ET AL.
Kivlighan, K. T., Granger, D. A., & Booth, A. (2005). Gender differences in
testosterone and cortisol response to competition. Psychoneuroendo-
crinology, 30(1), 58–71.
Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition. Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt.
Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender
stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 942.
Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Puryear, C. (2018). Zero-sum
thinking and the masculinity contest: Perceived intergroup competition
and workplace gender bias. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 529–550.
Kuhnen, C. M., & Tymula, A. (2012). Feedback, self-esteem, and perfor-
mance in organizations. Management Science, 58(1), 94–113.
Kunze, A., & Miller, A. R. (2017). Women helping women? Evidence from
private sector data on workplace hierarchies. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 99(5), 769–775.
Landkammer, F., & Sassenberg, K. (2016). Competing while cooperating
with the same others: The consequences of conflicting demands in co-
opetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(12), 1670.
Latu, I. M., Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., Lisco, C. G., Estes, S. B., &
Donahue, D. K. (2011). What we “say” and what we “think” about
female managers: Explicit versus implicit associations of women with
success. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 252–266.
Lee, S. Y., Kesebir, S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2016). Gender differences in
response to competition with same-gender coworkers: A relational
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(6), 869.
Leonard, J. S., & Levine, D. I. (2006). Effect of diversity on turnover: A large
case study. The Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 59(4), 547–572.
Lewis, H. B. (1944). An experimental study of the role of the ego in work.
I. the role of the ego in coöperative work. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 34(2), 113.
Littler, J., & Rottenberg, C. (2021). Feminist solidarities: Theoretical and
practical complexities. Gender, Work and Organization, 28(3), 864–877.
Livingston, B. A., Hurst, C., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2014). Stigmatizing
women in the workplace: The consequences of gendered labeling of
aggression. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1)
(p. 14540). Academy of Management.
Livingston, R. W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agen-
tic black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dom-
inance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23(4),
354–358.
Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role
of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 293–355.
Margolis, L. (2017). Competition among women: Myth and reality. Psych
Central. Retrieved on March 17, 2017, Retrieved from: https://
psychcentral.com/lib/competition-among-women-myth-and-reality
Markowsky, E., & Beblo, M. (2022). When do we observe a gender gap in
competition entry? A meta-analysis of the experimental literature.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 198, 139–163.
Marques, J. (2009). Sisterhood in short supply in the workplace. Human
Resource Management International Digest, 17(5), 28–31.
Martens, R. (1976). Competitiveness in sport. In Physical activity and
human well-being (Vol. 1978) (pp. 323–344). Symposia Specialists.
Mavin, S. (2006a). Venus envy: Problematizing solidarity behavior and
queen bees. Women in Management Review, 21(4), 264–276.
Mavin, S. (2006b). Venus envy 2: Sisterhood, queen bees and female
misogyny in management. Women in Management Review, 21(5),
349–364.
Mavin, S. (2008). Queen bees, wannabees and afraid to bees: No more
‘best enemies’ for women in management? British Journal of Manage-
ment, 19(1), 75–84.
Mavin, S., Grandy, G., & Williams, J. (2014). Experiences of women elite
leaders doing gender: Intra-gender micro-violence between women.
British Journal of Management, 25(3), 439–455.
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
27
Mavin, S., Grandy, G., & Williams, J. (2017). Theorizing women leaders'
negative relations with other women. In S. R. Madsen (Ed.). Handbook
of research on gender and leadership (pp. 328–343). Edward Elgar Pub-
lishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785363863.00031
Mavin, S., Williams, J., & Grandy, G. (2014). Negative intra-gender relations
between women: Friendships, competition, and female misogyny. In S.
Kumra, R. Simpson, & R. J. Burke (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of gender
in organizations (pp. 439–455). Oxford University Press.
May, M. A., & Doob, L. W. (1937). Competition and cooperation: A report
of the sub-committee on competitive-cooperative habits, of the com-
mittee on personality and culture, based on analyses of research
achievement, and opportunity by members of the sub-committee.
Social Science Research Council.
McAndrew, F. T. (2009). The interacting roles of testosterone and chal-
lenges to status in human male aggression. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 14(5), 330–335.
McGinn, K. L., & Milkman, K. L. (2013). Looking up and looking out: Career
mobility effects of demographic similarity among professionals. Orga-
nization Science, 24(4), 1041–1060.
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Women in the workplace. https://www.
mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-
the-workplace
McRae, M. (2004). How do I talk to you, my white sister? (Center for Gender
in Organizations Commentaries, No. 2). Simmons School of Manage-
ment. Retrieved from: nyuscholars.nyu.edu
Miller, C. D. (2019). Exploring the crabs in the barrel syndrome in organiza-
tions. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 26(3), 352–371.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and
creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and
integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
116(2), 229–240.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W.
(2017). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is
how we think about the problem. Academy of Management, 61(1),
26–45.
Moroschan, G., Hurd, P. L., & Nicoladis, E. (2009). Sex differences in the
use of indirect aggression in adult Canadians. Evolutionary Psychology,
7(2), 146–159.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., &
Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor
male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
109(41), 16474–16479.
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The competition–performance rela-
tion: A meta-analytic review and test of the opposing processes model
of competition and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1035.
Nakashima, N. A., Halali, E., & Halevy, N. (2017). Third parties promote
cooperative norms in repeated interactions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 68, 212–223.
Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89(1),
1–15.
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competi-
tion? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
122(3), 1067–1101.
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and competition. Annual
Review of Economics., 3(1), 601–630.
Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A. (2008). Motivated to
penalize: Women's strategic rejection of successful women. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 237–247.
Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet
out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agen-
tic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 406–413.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be,
shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of
prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4),
269–281.

28
Price, J. (2008). Gender differences in the response to competition. ILR
Review, 61(3), 320–333.
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox
and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement, 43(2), 189–198.
Rindfleish, J., & Sheridan, A. (2003). No change from within: Senior women
managers' response to gendered organizational structures. Women in
Management Review, 18, 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09649420310491477
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behaviour and their cor-
relates. Aggressive Behavior, 20(5), 359–368.
Roscigno, V. J. (2007). The face of discrimination: How race and gender
impact work and home lives. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Rosette, A. S., de Leon, R. P., Koval, C. Z., & Harrison, D. A. (2018). Inter-
sectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 1–22.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic
behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and back-
lash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2012). Reac-
tions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (Vol. 45) (pp. 167–227). Academic Press.
Ryckman, R. M., Hammer, M., Kaczor, L. M., & Gold, J. A. (1996). Construc-
tion of a personal development competitive attitude scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 66(2), 374–385.
Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color
in leadership: Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psy-
chologist, 65(3), 171.
Sandberg, S. (2015). Lean in-women, work and the will to lead. HRD Net-
work Journal, 8(2), 137–139.
Sasson-Levy, O. (2002). Constructing identities at the margins: Masculi-
nities and citizenship in the Israeli army. Sociological Quarterly, 43(3),
357–383.
Sasson-Levy, O. (2003). Feminism and military gender practices: Israeli
women soldiers in ‘masculine’ roles. Sociological Inquiry, 73(3),
440–465.
Schieman, S., & McMullen, T. (2008). Relational demography in the work-
place and health: An analysis of gender and the subordinate–
superordinate role-set. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49(3),
286–300.
Sheppard, L. D., & Aquino, K. (2013). Much ado about nothing? Observers'
problematization of women's same-sex conflict at work. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 27(1), 52–62.
Sheppard, L. D., & Aquino, K. (2017). Sisters at arms: A theory of female
same-sex conflict and its problematization in organizations. Journal of
Management, 43(3), 691–715.
Shurchkov, O., & van Geen, A. V. (2019). Why female decision-makers shy
away from promoting competition. Kyklos, 72(2), 297–331.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A
dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management
Review, 36(2), 381–403.
Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1974). The queen bee syndrome.
Psychology Today, 7(8), 55–60.
Stanne, M. B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Does competition
enhance or inhibit motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(1), 133–154.
Steil, J. M., & Hay, J. L. (1997). Social comparison in the workplace: A study
of 60 dual-career couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
23(4), 427–438.
Sutter, M., & Glätzle-Rützler, D. (2014). Gender differences in the willing-
ness to compete emerge early in life and persist. Management Science,
61(10), 2339–2354.
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL.
Swab, R. G., & Johnson, P. D. (2018). Steel sharpens steel: A review of mul-
tilevel competition and competitiveness in organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 147–165.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1978). Intergroup Behavior. In Introducing social
psychology (pp. 401–466).
Van Berkum, J. J., Holleman, B., Nieuwland, M., Otten, M., & Murre, J.
(2009). Right or wrong? The brain's fast response to morally objection-
able statements. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1092–1099. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02411.x
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and
down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9(3),
419–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015669
VandenBos, G. R. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psycho-
logical Association.
Vial, A. C., Napier, J. L., & Brescoll, V. L. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female
leaders and the self-reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. The Leadership
Quarterly, 27(3), 400–414.
Vugt, M. V., Cremer, D. D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in
cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychologi-
cal Science, 18(1), 19–23.
Walley, K. (2007). Coopetition: An introduction to the subject and an
agenda for research. International Studies of Management and Organiza-
tion, 37(2), 11–31.
Webber, G. R., & Giuffre, P. (2019). Women's relationships with women at
work: Barriers to solidarity. Sociology Compass, 13(6), e12698.
Weisfeld, C. C. (1986). Female behavior in mixed-sex competition: A
review of the literature. Developmental Review, 6(3), 278–299.
Weisul, K. (2017). Women don't help each other up the carrer ladder? Don't
tell that to these high-achivers. In: https://www.inc.com/Kimberly-
weisul/why-the-queen-bee-at%E2%80%93work-is-endangered-
pecies.html
Welsh McNulty, A. (2018). Don't underestimate the power of women sup-
porting each other at work. Harvard Business Review. Sep 3, 2018.
Wozniak, D., Harbaugh, W. T., & Mayr, U. (2014). The menstrual cycle and
performance feedback alter gender differences in competitive choices.
University of Oregon Economics Department. Working Paper.
Yami, S., Castaldo, S., Dagnino, B., & Le Roy, F. (Eds.). (2010). Coopetition:
Winning strategies for the 21st century. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Zheng, W., Kark, R., & Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox versus dilemma mind-
set: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between
agency and communion. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 584–596.
Zheng, W., Surgevil, O., & Kark, R. (2018). Dancing on the razor's edge:
How top-level women leaders manage the paradoxical tensions
between agency and communion. Sex Roles, 79(11), 633–650.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Ronit Kark is a Full Professor of Leadership and Organizational
Psychology in the Department of Psychology at Bar-Ilan Univer-
sity and was the founder and former Director of the “Gender in
the Field Graduate Program” at the Gender Studies Department
in Bar-Ilan. She is also a Distinguished Research Professor at the
Exeter School of Business, UK, and an affiliated scholar at the
Center for Gender in Organizations (CGO) at Simmons College,
Boston. Her research interests include leadership and follower-
ship, positive relationships and relatedness in organizations, iden-
tity and identification processes, gender dynamics in
organizations and the role of play in creativity at work. Her work
has been published in leading journals. Prof. Kark was an Associ-
ate Editor of The Leadership Quarterly and has served as a
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2691 by UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Wiley Online Library on [27/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KARK ET AL. 29

member of the Editorial Board in The Academy of Management allow for competition among women, using experimental and
Review, Journal and Discoveries, The International Journal of Man- quantitative research methods.
agement Review, and other journals. In 2012 she received the
Shulamit Kalker is a Graduate student of Developmental Psychol-
Academy of Management 2012 Award for the Scholarly Contribu-
ogy at the Academic College of Tel-Aviv Yaffo and an Organiza-
tions to Educational Practice Advancing Women in Leadership.
tional Psychology Researcher. She is the manager of the
Nurit Yacobovitz is a doctoral candidate at the Graduate Gender Leadership Lab in Bar-Ilan University, working with the first
Studies Program at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. She is an Organi- author of this paper.
zational Psychologist and was the Former Head of Organizational
Consulting and Development Section, Department of Behavioral
Sciences, at the Israeli Police. She uses qualitative research
methods to study competition versus sisterhood among women How to cite this article: Kark, R., Yacobovitz, N., Segal-Caspi,
in the context of feminist organizations. L., & Kalker-Zimmerman, S. (2023). Catty, bitchy, queen bee or
sister? A review of competition among women in
Lihi Segal-Caspi is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Psy-
organizations from a paradoxical-coopetition perspective.
chology at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. She is also a Lecturer at
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.
the Open University. She holds an MA in Clinical Psychology, Bar-
1002/job.2691
Ilan University. She studies competition among women at work,
aiming to understand what are the environmental conditions that