How Do Modern Workplace Structures Influence Gender Diversity and Leadership? Q&A with Professor Justin Frake
In this Q&A, Professor Justin Frake discusses how his research investigates the subtle ways organizational design shapes gender diversity and leadership outcomes. Through experiments and surveys, his studies indicate that companies adopting flat hierarchies may see fewer women applicants, often due to worries over informal advancement and limited transparency. Frake also revisits claims about women in top leadership roles, helping to clarify the true impact of female CEOs on organizational culture.
You published research about women avoiding workplaces that are "flat." Can you detail some of the data that led to your findings?
The paper was sparked by the observation that many companies were adopting flatter organizational structures and seemed to be promoting them as modern and appealing to employees. We had a suspicion that men and women might view these structures somewhat differently, so we set out to see how this trend was affecting gender diversity in the talent pool.
Quantitatively, we conducted field experiments and an online survey. In our field experiments, we partnered with a hiring firm to post two very similar job descriptions. The only difference was that one described the company as having a "flat" hierarchy, while the other didn't mention hierarchy. We found that while the total number of applicants was the same for both job postings, the flat hierarchy description led to a significant decrease in the proportion of female applicants. As a result, companies end up with a larger proportion of men applying for these jobs.
Our follow-up experiment showed that women perceived flatter structures as offering fewer opportunities for career progression. They seemed to be concerned that success and promotion in these environments might depend more on informal networking, relationships, etc.
Based on that study, can you recommend a more appealing structure for offering women career progression opportunities?
There is a lot more work to be done before we have enough evidence to make recommendations to companies. That said, I don't think our paper suggests firms need to return to a rigid, top-down hierarchy. Instead, I think firms that want to adopt a flat hierarchy might think about making the criteria for career progression clear, transparent, and structured. Companies could do this by clearly outlining what is required for an employee to move to the next level, establishing formal mentorship and sponsorship programs, etc.
What does current research reveal about the impact of women in leadership roles on organizational performance and culture?
Several recent studies have suggested that promoting women to leadership positions hurts more junior women. Specifically, several empirical papers purported to find evidence that women CEOs hurt the careers of other women in their organizations. This finding was the subject of much debate.
In a recent paper, co-authored with Andreas Hagemann and Jose Uribe, we re-examined this question. We found that the original finding was the result of a statistical phenomenon called collider bias. A "collider" is a variable that is influenced by two other variables, and when you condition your analysis on that collider, it can create a false or spurious correlation between the two original variables. In this case, the flawed analysis was creating a misleading correlation between the presence of a woman CEO and the career outcomes of other women in the firm.
After correcting for this bias, we found no evidence to suggest that women CEOs negatively (or positively) impact the career outcomes of other women. My hope is that it refocuses the field on finding the true drivers of success rather than chasing statistical artifacts.
What emerging trends or future directions are scholars currently exploring regarding women in leadership?
I think there is a shift in the conversation around gender in the workplace, though I defer to my colleagues, such as Aparna Joshi or Siyu Yu. For a long time, the focus was primarily on identifying the barriers to women's advancement—the "glass ceiling," the "leaky pipeline," and so on. I think we now know a lot more about those issues. The conversation seems to be shifting to the enabling factors, such as the roles of mentorship, sponsorship, etc. Scholars are also looking at how other factors, like the rise of remote work and the impact of global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, are changing the role of gender and its intersection with leadership.
Can you highlight any industry sectors or countries where women’s leadership advancement has been particularly strong—or lagging—and why?
I think the Nordic countries are often seen as leaders in advancing women to senior roles. This is due, in large part, to strong public policies, including generous paid parental leave and, in some cases, corporate board gender quotas. These policies create a cultural expectation and a structural framework that supports women's careers in a way that is less common elsewhere.
Conversely, certain industries have historically lagged behind. Sectors like venture capital, technology, and traditional finance have had some of the lowest representation of women in leadership. The reasons are complex, but I think they often include ingrained cultural norms, historical dominance by men, and "good ol' boys" networks that have traditionally excluded women.
On the other hand, we see stronger representation in industries like healthcare, education, and non-profit organizations. This is often because these fields have historically been more female-dominated at the entry and mid-levels, creating a more robust pipeline of candidates for senior leadership positions.
