Which organisational context factors help women to obtain and retain leadership positions in the 21st century? A systematic review and research agenda for human resource management

Gierke, Lioba A.; Schlamp, Sofia; Gerpott, Fabiola H. Article — Published Version Which organisational context factors help women to obtain and retain leadership positions in the 21st century? A systematic review and research agenda for human resource management Human Resource Management Journal Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Gierke, Lioba A.; Schlamp, Sofia; Gerpott, Fabiola H. (2024) : Which organisational context factors help women to obtain and retain leadership positions in the 21st century? A systematic review and research agenda for human resource management, Human Resource Management Journal, ISSN 1748-8583, Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 35, Iss. 1, pp. 336-370, https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12568 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/313754 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Received: 24 November 2022 - Revised: 6 May 2024 - Accepted: 24 July 2024 DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12568 REVIEW ARTICLE Which organisational context factors help women to obtain and retain leadership positions in the 21st century? A systematic review and research agenda for human resource management Lioba A. Gierke 1 |Sofia Schlamp 2 |Fabiola H. Gerpott 1 1 WHU—Otto Beisheim School of Management, Chair of Leadership, Düsseldorf, Germany 2 Department for Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands Correspondence Lioba A. Gierke. Email: [email protected] Funding information Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Grant/ Award Number: GE3004/2‐1 Abstract Obtaining and retaining women in leadership positions is an ongoing challenge for scholars and practitioners in Human Resource Management (HRM). Research on the role of organisational context factors in supporting women who either are already in leadership roles or aspire to obtain them is fragmented and spread across multiple disciplines. In this systematic literature review, we identified 87 articles related to organisational context factors and female leadership. We mapped these articles onto the stages of the employee lifecycle: (1) Recruitment and Selection, (2) Learning and Development, (3) Performance Appraisal, and (4) Reward and Retention. Additionally, we introduced the category (5) Organisational Setting to encompass overarching context factors such as industry. For each article, we assessed the underlying assumptions concerning the gender‐neutrality or gender‐sensitivity in the practical implications. Our analysis revealed that some stages of the employee lifecycle received more attention than others and Abbreviations: ELC, employee lifecycle; HRM, human resource management; SLR, systematic literature review. 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. © 2024 The Author(s). Human Resource Management Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 336 - Hum Resour Manag J. 2025;35:336–370. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj that the derived practical implications often go far beyond what can be concluded based on the study findings. We discuss theoretical implications and outline future research opportunities, such as the potential for HRM scholars to integrate an intersectionality lens into research along the employee lifecycle. We end with practical implications for HRM practitioners who wish to implement evidence‐based insights from our review. KEYWORDS gender, leadership, organisational context factor, systematic literature review, women 1 | INTRODUCTION Enhancing the representation of women in leadership positions remains a challenge for contemporary human resource management (HRM) scholars and practitioners (e.g., Seierstad et al., 2021; Ugarte & Rubery, 2021). This challenge persists because women are under‐represented in leadership positions across most companies and industries worldwide (AllBright, 2023; Thomas et al., 2023). HRM practices play a critical role in tackling this Practitioner notes What is currently known? �Women continue to be under‐represented in leadership roles. �Research on organisational context factors that support women in obtaining and retaining leadership positions is fragmented and spread across multiple subdisciplines of management research. What this paper adds? �We classify the literature on organisational context factors and female leadership into the employee lifecycle (ELC) stages and offer insights into actions that human resource management (HRM) departments can take to successfully recruit, develop, evaluate, and retain female talent. �We identify a mismatch between what is tested empirically in extant research and what is recommended based on those findings. �We delineate future research directions for HRM scholars, including (1) illuminating currently under‐ represented ELC stages, (2) conducting intervention studies comparing the effectiveness of gender‐ neutral and gender‐sensitive organisational measures, and (3) examining the benefits of adopting an intersectionality perspective. The implications for practitioners �Practitioners can utilise our evidence‐based overview of HRM practices and policies to obtain and retain female talent. �Practitioners can find inspiration for collaborative interventions with scholars, aimed at identifying innovative strategies to attract and retain women in leadership roles. GIERKE ET AL. - 337 issue. Increasing the share of women in these positions is not only a matter of equality but also a potential lever for gaining a competitive advantage. To illustrate, gender diversity (among other diversity markers) within the workforce (Dai et al., 2019; Østergaard et al., 2011), and on organisational boards (Khushk et al., 2023; Makkonen, 2022) is positively associated with enhanced innovation performance. Moreover, a higher representation of women on boards is positively linked to improved firm performance (Joecks et al., 2023; Sieweke et al., 2023). To explain female leaders' under‐representation in leadership roles, person‐focused research has emphasised gender differences in individual characteristics or behaviours (Badura et al., 2018; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly & Karau, 1991; Netchaeva et al., 2022; Shen & Joseph, 2021). However, the problem may also be aggravated by organisational structures. Accordingly, scholars have started to pay more attention to organisational context factors, which are defined as ‘variables associated with the organisation that could potentially affect behaviour occurring within the organisation’ (Porter & McLaughlin, 2006, p. 561). These factors include ‘individuals, structures, occurrences, and surroundings’ (Umeh et al., 2023, p. 151) and are likely shaped by HRM (Dickens, 1998). Specifically, HRM departments may introduce contextual measures that target (1) the individual in the organisation (e.g., training programmes for leaders), (2) the organisational culture (e.g., the values, beliefs, and practices that share the organisational climate, cf. Schein, 2010), or (3) the structure of the organisation (e.g., formal regulations and conditions such as the distribution of decision‐making roles). These measures can further be classified as gender‐ neutral (i.e., gender‐blind) approaches (e.g., opt‐out instead of opt‐in mechanism for all employees eligible for leadership roles or on‐site childcare; Erkal et al., 2022, Fritz & van Knippenberg, 2018) or gender‐sensitive (i.e., gender‐aware) approaches (e.g., role models or training programmes for female employees; Hentschel et al., 2021, Pichler et al., 2008). So far, research on context factors that support women in obtaining and retaining leadership positions remains dispersed across multiple subdisciplines of management research. While this is not inherently problematic, two challenges characterise the literature. First, there is a strong research emphasis on studying how female talent can be supported in ascending to (higher) leadership positions (Greer & Virick, 2008). However, this focus overlooks that the lifecycle of individuals in organisations encompasses a broader spectrum of experiences along the different stages of the employee lifecycle (ELC). The ELC is commonly divided into four stages: the recruitment and selection of a candidate, employee learning and development within the organisation, employee evaluation, and employee retention and possibly departure from the organisation (Gladka et al., 2022; Gürler et al., 2022). A systematic literature review (SLR) of organisational context factors in relation to women obtaining and retaining leadership positions across the ELC could help HRM scholars to determine which stages of the ELC have been thoroughly covered in research as well as which domains lack empirical underpinnings. Second, such an SLR may also help address another prevalent issue in the HRM literature—the research‐ practice gap. The term refers to the disconnect between scholarly research and management practices (Banks et al., 2021; Tkachenko et al., 2017). Among others, this issue includes ensuring that the recommendations in research papers accurately reflect the findings and do not extend beyond what the data conclusively support (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010; Eby & Facteau, 2022; Lawler, 2007). In the context of gender, where research has shown that the consequences of certain recommendations can differ from intuitive expectations (Gartzia & Van Knippenberg, 2016), it is particularly relevant that scholars endorse only measures that have some evidence supporting their effectiveness. In light of the two challenges outlined, we formulated the following guiding research questions: Which organisational context factors have been studied in relation to women obtaining and retaining leadership positions throughout the ELC? What underlying gender‐neutral and gender‐sensitive assumptions manifest in the practical implications derived from extant studies, and how are they aligned with the foci of the studies in question? We aimed to answer these questions with a qualitative SLR (Cho, 2022; Siddaway et al., 2019) of empirical studies on leadership, gender, and organisational context factors. We conducted a (qualitative) SLR because it entails a ‘transparent process’ (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 209), showing how we obtained an integrated overview of 338 - GIERKE ET AL. the literature organised around our guiding research questions. The systematic nature of our review mitigated some of the inherent challenges characterising other review methods, like narrative reviews, which are often criticised for potential biases in article selection and interpretation (Rynes & Bartunek, 2017; Tranfield et al., 2003). Indeed, the growing adoption of SLRs in management research (e.g., Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Rojon et al., 2011; Snyder, 2019; Tranfield et al., 2003) can be attributed to their capacity to enable researchers to pose one or several research questions, acquire evidence rigorously, appraise the relevance of the evidence, and aggregate evidence‐ based practices (Barends & Briner, 2014; Grant & Booth, 2009). To profit from these advantages, we assessed studies pertinent to our research focus, published in 15 top‐tier management journals between 2000 and 2022. We complemented this screening with a keyword‐focused online search across the Web of Science, PsycArticles, and Google Scholar. Our review offers three contributions. First, in response to the call for a more balanced research approach that extends beyond the predominant focus on employees entering new positions (Klotz et al., 2021), we use the ELC (Searle & Skinner, 2011) to structure our review of the HRM literature on women, leadership, and organisational context factors. The obtained overview allows for deriving future research directions specifying (1) which levels and stages of the ELC could receive more recognition in relation to female leadership and organisational context factors, (2) how knowledge can be advanced by more rigorously examining the efficacy of gender‐neutral versus gender‐sensitive HRM approaches, and (3) why the intersectionality perspective offers great promises for future research. Secondly, we analyse the underlying assumptions of the research design and the derived recommendations in the included articles. Specifically, we examine whether the HRM practices studied or suggested target all employees (i.e., gender‐neutral) or specific gender groups (i.e., gender‐sensitive) throughout the ELC. Thirdly, we offer a contribution for HRM practitioners by providing a detailed summary of evidence‐based recommendations derived directly from the empirical findings of the articles we reviewed. This thorough compilation aids practitioners in applying the insights from our review to create and enhance gender‐ inclusive environments in their workplaces, thereby offering an actionable and concrete approach to HRM practices. 2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 | Gender and leadership Climbing the corporate ladder is often more challenging for women than for men (Ciancetta & Roch, 2021; Ohlott et al., 1994). This phenomenon, also referred to as the ‘glass ceiling’, was first described in 1984 (Taparia & Lenka, 2022) and has received attention in research and practice alike (e.g., Gooty et al., 2023; Mun & Jung, 2018; Ng & Sears, 2017; Powell & Butterfield, 2015). Reviews of this comprehensive stream of research have covered the policy‐related, psychological, and socio‐cultural barriers encountered by women in their pursuit of leadership roles (Clevenger & Singh, 2013; Kapoor et al., 2021; Taparia & Lenka, 2022). Yet, even after achieving leadership positions, women continue to face challenges. This is, for example, due to the imbalanced gender composition in organisational contexts, where the number of women in leadership is still significantly lower than that of men (World Economic Forum, 2023). Consequently, women in leadership roles frequently encounter tokenism; they are approached primarily as representatives of their gender group, or as ‘symbols rather than individuals’ (Kanter, 1977, p. 38). This experience of tokenism is positively linked to a perceived psychological climate of inequity, which in turn is associated with higher job stress and turnover intentions among women (King et al., 2010). Considering that an imbalanced gender composition is part of the organisational context and that extant research points to female leaders encountering challenges even after breaking the glass ceiling, an issue of relevance when studying gender and leadership are the systematic organisational context factors that help women both obtain and retain leadership positions throughout the ELC. GIERKE ET AL. - 339 2.2 | Employee life cycle HRM supports an employee through their life within an organisation, from the first point of contact to the last. This process has been described in the ELC, wherein it is referred to as the ‘HRM cycle’, ‘employment life cycle’, or ‘human capital cycle’ (Gladka et al., 2022). As a stage‐based model, the ELC provides a conceptual framework for organising the role and tasks of an HRM department at every stage of an employee's life in an organisation (Gürler et al., 2022). Whereas scholars differ in their perspectives on the number of stages that an employee experiences over their organisational life (e.g., App et al., 2012; Cattermole, 2019; Cohen, 2010; Nagendra, 2014; Shyam & Ramachandra Gowda, 2016; Smither, 2003), there is consensus in viewing the ELC as a response to scholarly critiques of the disproportionate research focus on getting the right people into the organisation. The concern at hand is that this emphasis on recruitment and selection frequently results in the underestimation of other critical stages in an employee's journey within an organisation (Klotz et al., 2021). For example, scholars have used the ELC to discuss the costs of employee turnover (Smither, 2003) or the influence of social media on HR practices throughout the ELC (Nagendra, 2014). The ELC not only is a helpful tool for organising research but also serves as an asset for organisations by providing a structure to holistically manage employees (Young, 2004). Searle and Skinner (2011) outlined four stages that describe the steps relevant to employees building their careers in an organisation: (1) Recruitment and Selection, (2) Learning and Development, (3) Performance Appraisal, and (4) Reward and Retention. We made three adaptations to the model. First, we extended the fourth stage to include articles on employee retention (and not only on rewards). Second, we changed the name of ‘Training and Development’ to ‘Learning and Development’ to more accurately represent the goal of such initiatives —namely, enhancing employees' knowledge through learning. Third, we added a fifth stage, Organisational Setting, which describes overarching factors such as a company's gender composition and industry affiliation, because such general organisational context factors influence the acquisition and retention of female leaders across all ELC stages. For example, research on how the gender composition of an organisation influences women's chances of attaining leadership positions (Ali et al., 2021) falls into the stage of Organisational Setting. Notably, the ELC should not be interpreted as a strictly linear progression from recruitment to exit; instead, it is more accurately depicted as an often‐overlapping process, with stages that can overlap and vary in duration (Gürler et al., 2022). To illustrate, although the first ELC stage ends with the onboarding of a candidate, Learning and Development and Performance Appraisal are more difficult to separate. This overlap may make it challenging for practitioners to identify the appropriate timing of HRM practices, but it is less relevant to HRM research, in which scholars focus on specific challenges or practices that can clearly be assigned to one of the ELC stages. 2.3 | Gender‐neutrality versus gender‐sensitivity HRM diversity practices throughout the ELC can either target all employees or a specific group of employees. In age‐diversity research, scholars describe this distinction as between age‐inclusive and age‐specific HRM practices. Age‐inclusive HRM practices target all employees, irrespective of age (e.g., Rudolph & Zacher, 2021), and age‐ specific HRM practices target specific (vulnerable) age groups, such as older workers (Fasbender & Gerpott, 2021). This conceptual differentiation has also been applied in the context of gender (Blithe, 2019; Gooty et al., 2023; Kroese, 2022; Lau et al., 2023; Martin & Phillips, 2017,2019). In research on diversity management and HRM, gender‐neutral practices are activities that do not address specific gender groups but instead are designed to be inclusive by omitting considerations of or elements related to gender (Blithe, 2019; Martin & Phillips, 2017). For example, an HRM department introducing parental leave for all employees, irrespective of sex, exemplifies a gender‐neutral practice. The rationale behind gender‐neutral practices is to create fair opportunities for all individuals (Ali, 2016). Advocates of this approach emphasise that practices that do not put gender (differences) front 340 - GIERKE ET AL. and centre help shape an environment wherein the conflict between stereotypically communal attributes associated with women and the agentic traits frequently deemed necessary in the business world are less salient (Martin & Phillips, 2017). Consequently, women may face fewer prescriptive stereotypes and experience reduced instances of negative self‐evaluations as well as increased feelings of belonging (Enwereuzor, 2021; Martin & Phillips, 2017). In contrast, gender‐sensitive practices are designed to address the unique needs of specific gender groups. An example of a gender‐sensitive HRM practice is the implementation of development programmes specifically for women, aimed at providing support and resources to facilitate their successful pursuit of a leadership career (e.g., Debebe et al., 2016). Furthermore, workshops that target all employees are considered gender‐sensitive if their primary objective is to raise awareness about the specific biases that women encounter in the workplace. Gender‐sensitive approaches to training aim to account for the different needs and resources of participants as, for example, in online learning, or in situations where the gender composition of training groups could have potentially detrimental effects (Kroese, 2022). Proponents of this approach emphasise that implementing such practices is necessary for fostering equal opportunities for men and women in organisations (Hentschel et al., 2021). The underlying rationale is that gender must be considered when developing and designing HRM practices to ensure that gender‐specific needs and characteristics are sufficiently addressed (Jonsen et al., 2010). Although authors often implicitly ascribe these assumptions—that is, they implicitly position their research as studying gender‐neutral or gender‐sensitive practices—the assumptions are implied at several stages of scholarly publications. For instance, the chosen research design (e.g., studying only women), the research focus on specific measures (e.g., female leadership training programmes), or the derived recommendations for practice (e.g., mentoring for female leaders) inherently align with one of the two logics. Identifying and articulating such implicit assumptions is a value‐neutral method of inquiry (also referred to as the ‘problematising lens’; Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011,2020) that helps map the underlying streams in a research field of interest. Providing context to our motivation and methodological choices, we next describe our SLR procedure in more depth, thereby also touching upon the problematising approach as part of outlining our broader analytical strategy. 3 | LITERATURE SEARCH AND ANALYTICAL APPROACH To structure our review, we followed Callahan's 6 Ws: ‘Who, When, Where, HoW, What, and Why’ (2014). 3.1 | Who and when? The first and second authors of this paper and three research assistants conducted the literature search for publications between 2000 and 2022 (June). We chose this timeframe for three reasons. First, the turn of the century represents a widely recognised demarcation point in literature reviews, as evidenced by similar approaches in recent scholarly work (Argyropoulou & Spyridakis, 2022; Guchait et al., 2023). For instance, in reviews of the gender neutrality of employee training programmes and on gender‐equality practices in organisations—topics closely aligned with ours—Kroese (2022) and Lau et al. (2023), respectively, reviewed literature starting from the year 2000. The focus on this period is particularly pertinent in leadership, wherein scholars regard the start of the 21st century as a new era (Allio, 2023; Day et al., 2021; Ngayo Fotso, 2021), which was accompanied by changes in HRM practices (Scullion et al., 2007). Second, the 21st century has seen a significant surge in both political and societal discourse on gender inequality, coupled with a growing recognition of the urgency to address these disparities, as exemplified by the UN Security Council Resolution 1325. This heightened awareness of gender issues is mirrored in academic pursuits pertinent to the workplace, including role congruity theory proposed by Eagly and Karau (2002). Originating in the early 21st century, this theory continues to be a prominent reference in GIERKE ET AL. - 341 contemporary studies, as demonstrated, for example, by recent scholarly endeavours (e.g., Reichel et al., 2020; Scheibmayr & Reichel, 2023). Lastly, recent years have witnessed significant strides by women in establishing their success in the workplace, marked by a decreasing gender education gap (Vincent‐Lancrin, 2008) and stronger representation of women in the labour market (Ortiz‐Ospina et al., 2018). 3.2 | Where? First, we screened 15 major management journals to identify articles that fit the scope of our review. These journals were HRM Journal (UK), Academy of Management Journal,Academy of Management Review,Administrative Science Quarterly,Human Relations,HRM Journal (USA), Journal of Applied Psychology,Journal of Management,Journal of Management Studies,Journal of Organisational Behaviour,Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, The Leadership Quarterly,Organisation Science,Organization Studies, and Personnel Psychology. Following common practice in reviews (Jacobsen et al., 2022; Koburtay et al., 2019; Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020; Mishra et al., 2022), we used the journal rankings from the Academic Journal Guide 2021 (‘CABS ranking’) as an inclusion criterion for selecting journals to consider in our search. Specifically, we included journals from the management literature that are rated as ‘4’ or ‘4*’ in the CABS ranking—that is, as ‘world‐leading’ journals (Wyse, 2017) in terms of ‘originality, significance and rigour’ (McKinnon, 2017, p. 434). Second, to identify additional relevant articles, we expanded our search by conducting online searches through the databases Web of Science, PsycArticles, and Google Scholar. 3.3 | How? For the journals, we screened the titles, abstracts, and keywords of articles on gender, leadership, and organisational context. For the online search, we developed a search string that included previous conceptualisations of organisational context factors (Oc, 2018; Porter & McLaughlin, 2006), in combination with keywords related to leadership and gender: ‘“leader*” AND “gender” OR “female” OR “women” OR “woman” AND “context” OR “culture” OR “climate” OR “goal” OR “purpose” OR “people” OR “composition” OR “process” OR “state” OR “condition” OR “structure” OR “time”’. We screened the first 500 hits for each of the three online databases. If at least 30 consecutive articles were deemed irrelevant for our review paper before reaching 500 hits, we halted the search at 500. However, if relevant articles persisted, we extended our screening process beyond this initial count to ensure comprehensive coverage and prevent the oversight of pertinent literature. This approach led to the screening of 549 articles from the Web of Science, 500 articles from PsycArticles, and 500 articles from Google Scholar. The screening was conducted by two authors and three assistants who underwent training, which involved (1) familiarising them with the objectives (i.e., guiding research questions) of the SLR, (2) outlining the inclusion/exclusion criteria, (3) providing examples of articles that aligned and did not algin with the scope of the review, and (4) convening in regular meetings to resolve any ambiguities. 3.4 | What? Given our focus on empirical evidence, we included only qualitative and quantitative peer‐reviewed publications, resulting in a final sample of 87 articles (Figure 1). 342 - GIERKE ET AL. 3.5 | Why? We aimed to assist HRM scholars in developing scientific insights into the potential of gender‐neutral and gender‐sensitive context factors relevant to different ELC stages. This decision necessitated that all articles included in our SLR met the following inclusion criteria: (1) Articles needed to encompass the broader FIGURE 1 Flowchart: Summary of article selection process. GIERKE ET AL. - 343 4.1 | Recruitment and Selection The ELC begins with Recruitment and Selection. ‘Recruitment’ refers to activities by the HRM department and other organisational members to attract candidates, advertise open positions, conduct interviews, and run (standardised) assessments(Hsu&Leat,2000;Woodhams & Lupton,2006).‘Selection’ refers tothechoice of asuitablecandidate and involves assessing applicants to decide who receives a job offer (Potočnik et al., 2021). This lifecycle stage plays a crucial role in an organisation's gender composition. We categorised all articles that discussed gender in recruitment and selection into this stage (n=21). As visualised in Table 1, most publications (n=14) focused on the structural level, referring to the structural components (e.g., job advertisements, quota policies, and succession announcements) that TABLE 2(Continued) Individual level Cultural level Structural level positively associated with women's leadership aspirations (Fritz & van Knippenberg, 2018) as well as the general organisational efforts towards overcoming barriers for women (Evans, 2010) �Diversity of boards impacts diversity efforts within organisations (Berns & Williams, 2022; Halliday et al., 2021) �Male‐typed industry (Ali et al., 2021; García‐Retamero & López‐Zafra, 2006), for example, in male‐typed industries, a female leader's work results influence how other female candidates are evaluated for leadership positions (Manzi & Heilman, 2021); simultaneously, women's leadership identification impacts whether they promote other women in such industries (Kaiser & Spalding, 2015) �Workforce composition (Alexander & Nowacki, 2022; Bossler et al., 2020; Gould et al., 2018; Ko et al., 2015; Kurtulus & Tomaskovic‐Devey, 2012; Mitra et al., 2021; van Emmerik et al., 2010; Walker & Aritz, 2015), for example, women in mixed‐gender groups are significantly less willing to take the lead compared to women in female‐only groups (Chen & Houser, 2019) or male‐ majority groups (Born et al., 2022) 350 - GIERKE ET AL. women encounter when they approach an organisation. Six articles concerned the cultural level (e.g., communication about organisational claims related to social‐impact framing or climate), and one addressed the individual level (i.e., female applicants' likelihood of reapplying to an organisation after a rejection). In sum, research has largely focused on the structural means that organisations can implement to appear as attractive employers to women. 4.2 | Learning and Development As part of HRM, organisations implement Learning and Development programmes to advance the skills and expertise of their employees. While much research concerns formal learning and development activities, this stage also encompasses mentorship and sponsorship programmes designed to informally support employees in broadening their networks, expanding their human capital, and creating visibility within the organisation (Hunt & Michael, 1983). Participation in learning and development programmes is positively associated with managerial success (Hoobler et al., 2011), which implies that this stage constitutes another crucial building block for women to obtain and retain leadership roles. We classified 10 articles as pertaining to this stage. In contrast to Recruitment and Selection, most of the articles focused on the individual level (n=4). This may be explained by HRM measures related to learning and development being predominantly designed to enhance the skills and abilities of individuals across various organisational settings. In terms of topics, the identified articles covered matters such as mentorship programmes and leadership development programmes. Three of the articles concerned structural features and explored, for example, features of different leadership development programmes for women (Kimball et al., 2021) or different approaches to coaching female leaders (Bonneywell & Gannon, 2022). Another three articles were relevant to the cultural level (Tables 1and 2)—specifically, concerning the integration of women into networks. In sum, the distribution of articles highlights the focus on learning and development opportunities that individuals can leverage to increase their prospects of obtaining and retaining leadership roles. Nevertheless, there is much less interest in investigating learning and development as tools to address barriers, such as biased perceptions of female talent among leaders and employees. 4.3 | Performance Appraisal Performance Appraisal is the assessment and review of an employee's performance. This stagecomprises all activities that HRM departments or other organisational members conduct to evaluate an employee's contribution to an organisation. Performance evaluations are often essential for promotion decisions (Sumelius et al., 2014). Notably, evaluations are not limited to formal HRM practices, such as an opt‐out instead of opt‐in mechanism for all employees eligible for leadership roles (Erkal et al., 2022), which is a measure at the structural level. Instead, evaluations can also refer to others' perceptions of female leaders and their effectiveness (i.e., cultural level) and to female leaders' self‐ assessments (i.e., individual level). Overall, we classified 28 articles as pertaining to this stage, and they could be allocated to all three levels—individual (n=11), cultural (n=9), and structural (n=8). This fairly balanced distribution of articles indicates that scholars not only focus on institutionalised processes (i.e., structural level) but also notice the relevance of gender biases in Performance Appraisal (i.e., how others perceive and thus assess women; the cultural level) as well as women potentially holding themselves back (the individual level). 4.4 | Reward and Retention Reward and Retention refers to the benefits that an employee receives from the organisation. These benefits could be monetary (e.g., wages and bonuses) or nonmonetary (e.g., work assignments). Performance Appraisal and this fourth GIERKE ET AL. - 351 stage are closely linked (e.g., performance‐contingent rewards; Geary, 1992). To clarify our coding approach, we classified articles that concerned the evaluation of employees under Performance Appraisal, and articles on the consequences of evaluation (e.g., wages) as pertaining to Reward and Retention. Promotions are not necessarily the result of an evaluation, but they serve as a form of employee reward, as promotions mostly involve structural changes, suchassalary raises andexpanded job responsibilities. Allnine articles addressing Reward andRetentionbelong to the structural level. Prevalent themes in this context include promotions (Otto et al., 2022) and career mobility (McGinn & Milkman, 2013). 4.5 | Organisational Setting Organisational Setting refers to contextual factors that pertain to the broader organisational setup, such as male‐ versus‐female‐typed industries (e.g., automotive manufacturing being stereotypically male‐typed) and organisational leadership arrangements (e.g., hierarchical structure). These characteristics are not specific to any ELC stage; rather, they have an overarching influence on female leaders' ability to advance in organisations. For articles concerningOrganisational Setting, 21out of 23wereallocated tothestructural level. Anexampleis researchinvestigating the impact of male‐dominated industry on the representation of women in the workforce (Ali et al., 2021). 4.6 | Derived practical implications: Gender‐neutral versus gender‐sensitive Thus far, we have provided a bird's‐eye view of the extant literature by mapping what we know onto the ELC and, classifying the literature in terms of research foci (i.e., individual, cultural, structural level). This approach has allowed us to gain an overview of the prevalent research foci for each ELC stage (Table 1) and the major research themes (Table 2) that scholars focus on when studying organisational context factors related to gender and leadership. Next, we will delve into the practical implications provided in extant publications. Specifically, we present the results of coding the practical implications 1 of all identified articles in terms of their level (individual, cultural, structural), as well as the underlying assumptions regarding their gender‐neutral or gender‐sensitive approaches (Table 3). TABLE 3Overview of gender‐neutral and gender‐sensitive practical implications. Approach underlying the practical implication Topic of practical implication Practical implications: Focus Gender‐neutral (n=38) �Policies (n=21) �Organisational culture (n=13) �Train and develop employees (n=4) �Bias trainings (n=3) �Mentorship/sponsorship (n=2) �Structural �Cultural �Individual �Individual �Individual Gender‐sensitive (n=67) �Policies (n=23) �Women as catalysts (n=15) �Mentorship/sponsorship/role models for women (n=14) �Organisational culture (n=13) �Train and develop women a (n=13) �Train on gender biases (n=10) �Men as catalyst (n=3) �Structural �Individual �Individual �Cultural �Individual �Individual �Individual Note: Some articles recommend gender‐neutral as well as gender‐sensitive practical implications, which entails that the sum of gender‐neutral and gender‐sensitive implications is higher than the N=87 articles included in this review. a one article recommends training male leaders. 352 - GIERKE ET AL. Overall, we identified 38 gender‐neutral measures and 67 gender‐sensitive implications. A closer examination of the practical implications in these articles revealed that the recommendations for HRM practitioners often exceed the initial research scope. More specifically, although most of the studies in this review adopted a gender‐ neutral approach in terms of their study design (i.e., collecting data from male and female study participants or assessing archival data [e.g., board member appointments] irrespective of gender; see Appendix), their recommendations often emphasised a gender‐sensitive approach, predominantly focusing on females. 4.7 | What has been recommended? 4.7.1 | Structural level First, gender‐neutral structural measures (n=21) are recommended nearly as often as gender‐sensitive structural measures (n=23). This finding suggests that scholars recognise the barriers inherent in organisational structures for women, thereby advocating for structural rather than individual adjustments encapsulating the idea to ‘fix the game, not the dame’ (Gloor et al., 2020, p. 497) or to ‘fix the system, not the women’ (Morrissey & Schmidt, 2008). For instance, scholars recommend gender‐neutral structural measures that provide equal opportunities for male and female leaders, such as concrete selection criteria (e.g., Chin, 2016) or neutral and non‐ discriminatory hiring and evaluation criteria that entail ‘promoting people on competency and skill irrespective of gender’ (Murray & Syed, 2010, p. 289). Gender‐sensitive suggestions on the structural level include policies related to hiring mechanisms (Maida & Weber, 2022) in combination with broader regulatory strategies like strategic workforce planning and regular monitoring of gender representation across all organisational levels (Seierstad et al., 2021). 4.7.2 | Cultural level Practical implications at the cultural level equally cover gender‐neutral (n=13) and gender‐sensitive (n=13) approaches. Gender‐neutral practices are directed at creating an organisational culture that fosters fairness, equality, flexibility, support, and collaboration (e.g., Scott & Brown, 2006; Walker & Aritz, 2015). The underlying assumption of these articles is that a gender‐neutral and inclusive organisational culture can play a vital role in overcoming managerial biases. In contrast, 13 articles recommended gender‐sensitive practices that target organisational culture, but they were rather vague. This issue—a lack of specificity in such recommendations—has been a point of critique for over a decade (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010), and our findings indicate that it continues to be pertinent. To illustrate, the recommendations suggest that organisational members should reflect on addressing (second‐generation) biases (e.g., Opoku & Williams, 2019), or the organisation should signal the value it attributes to female representation (Ali et al., 2021). A notably specific suggestion is in the work of Triana et al. (2017), who recommended displaying pictures of successful women on the walls of the organisations. Similarly, Wang et al. (2018) offered the relatively concrete recommendation to create more points of contact between shareholders and women in leadership roles. 4.7.3 | Individual level Overall, 64 gender‐neutral and gender‐sensitive measures were allocated on the individual level (Table 3). Gender‐neutral measures included training and developing CEOs, managers, and employees (e.g., Lanaj & Hollenbeck, 2015) concerning their skills (n=4) and ability to recognise and reduce biases (n=3). However, most GIERKE ET AL. - 353 individual‐level measures entailed a gender‐sensitive approach, with gender‐sensitive recommendations related to mentorship, sponsorship, and role models being prominent at the individual level (n=14). In contrast, mentorship, sponsorship, and role models were among the least frequently suggested implications for all employees (gender‐neutral; n=2). The 13 articles that recommended gender‐sensitive training programmes differed slightly in their proposed approaches to helping women by developing paths through which they can obtain and retain leadership roles. For instance, de Klerk and Verreynne (2017) highlighted the importance of training programmes for increasing female leaders' skills and abilities. In contrast, Virick and Greer (2012) focused on elevating the visibility of women (e.g., through high‐visibility assignments) to increase the likelihood of women being promoted. One commonality between the two recommendations was that they target the behaviours of individual women. This tendency to target women's behaviour was also evident in the 15 articles that highlighted the importance of women acting as catalysts of gender diversity at organisations. These articles stood in contrast to 10 articles that we classified as gender‐sensitive, as they focused on gender biases while recommending to educate and communicate related issues to all employees and managers (e.g., Chin, 2016), shareholders (Mitra et al., 2021), or women (e.g., Badura et al., 2018) as well as to three articles that highlighted the gender‐sensitive approach of men acting as catalysts for women. 4.7.4 | Summary Our analysis revealed that despite a growing trend to delineate structural and cultural practical implications aimed at modifying processes, procedures, and institutionalised gender‐neutral practices, a strong emphasis on the individual in terms of gender‐sensitive recommendations remains. The classification of articles throughout the ELC allowed for more detailed insights. Specifically, gender‐sensitive practical implications have a larger share across all ELC stages except for Reward and Retention (Table 1). The discrepancy between gender‐neutral and gender‐ sensitive recommendations was especially large for Recruitment and Selection. For this stage, only seven articles suggested gender‐neutral approaches, whereas 25 recommended gender‐sensitive approaches. This discrepancy entails that, especially in recruiting female talent, many of the suggested measures focus on the female candidate. For example, that women from the organisation may serve as recruiters, advocating for the advertisement of development programmes to potential female candidates (see Hentschel et al., 2021), or recommending that the organisation should empower HRM to address inappropriate statements towards women by interviewers (see van Esch et al., 2018). All of these measures aimed at boosting the likelihood of woman ascending to leadership roles. 5 | DISCUSSION In this review, we identified and mapped organisational context factors influencing women in obtaining and retaining leadership position through the ELC. We next outline the theoretical and practical implications before turning to the future research directions as well as the limitations of this SLR. 5.1 | Theoretical implications Whereas authors of previous reviews screened the literature through keywords with negative connotations, such as ‘career challenges’ or ‘career obstacles’ (e.g., Taparia & Lenka, 2022), we conducted a more neutrally targeted SLR (for example, by including only the keyword ‘leader*’ in our search string). As a result, we not only identified obstacles for women striving for leadership positions but also found several articles that highlighted unique opportunities or even advantages for women (e.g., Brands et al., 2015; Paustian‐Underdahl et al., 2014). From these 354 - GIERKE ET AL. findings, we gleaned that actively seeking counterfactuals could be more systematically employed in research on women and leadership. This technique entails contemplating a hypothetical alternative to the actual event or prevailing belief, termed the ‘counterfactual’ (McDermott, 2023). Doing so allows scholars to examine potential outcomes under the assumption that the opposite of the widely held view is true. For instance, rather than defaulting to the assumption that women face barriers, theory throughout the ELC could be developed differently if it specifies scenarios wherein women encounter neutral or even preferential conditions. Secondly, our analysis of existing publications' research foci, particularly in terms of how they address individual, cultural, or structural factors within the ELC, reveals a notable variety in research emphasis. For example, a substantial body of research identified in this SLR (23 out of 87 articles) involved studies where scholars considered the wider organisational setting in which women work. In today's diverse working world encompassing various organisational settings—from gig‐workers, small startups, and venture capitals to large corporations—recognising the importance of the organisational setting enables HRM practitioners and researchers to meticulously tailor their HRM initiatives to meet the needs of female talent within specific organisational contexts. In terms of levels, we noted a pronounced emphasis on structural factors in Recruitment and Selection, Reward and Retention, and Organisational Setting. In terms of Performance Appraisal, our findings show that research encompasses all three levels—individual, cultural, and structural. These findings indicate that the different stages of the ELC tend to attract distinct research interests, which unveils promising avenues for future research. Thirdly, we analysed the alignment between the levels as well as the gender‐neutrality and gender‐sensitivity of the actual findings and the suggested practical implications within the reviewed articles. Our analyses revealed discrepancies between study findings and derived practical implications. For example, while most studies focus on organisational structures, the practical implications predominantly centre on the individual. This discrepancy becomes even more pronounced when considering the orientation of the practical implications, whether gender‐ neutral or gender‐sensitive. To illustrate, while 13 articles recommended the implementation of mentorship and sponsorship programmes as well as role models, only two articles (McDonald & Westphal, 2013; Ramaswami et al., 2010) examined the effectiveness of these programmes. This mismatch is alarming, as the main function of the practical‐implications section is to “facilitate [the] implementation of a study's findings” (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010, p. 110). Even in articles with matching study designs and practical implications concerning gender‐neutrality (e.g., collecting data from all employees and suggesting organisational measures addressing all employees) and gender‐ sensitivity (e.g., collecting data specifically from women and suggesting organisational measures addressing women), there was often a mismatch between what was tested empirically and what was recommended. For instance, Taser‐Erdogan (2022) interviewed women about the underrepresentation of women in managerial positions and recommended training programmes to tackle gender bias among male and female employees without investing these programmes. In sum, in our review, we observed that numerous articles extended their scope to offer practical recommendations that surpassed the direct findings of their respective studies. While we have critiqued this tendency for its potential overreach, we took a different approach in identifying practical implications. Specifically, to genuinely assist practitioners, we meticulously synthesised evidence‐based recommendations rooted in the actual findings of all the studies we identified. This approach ensured that our guidance was grounded in empirical evidence and aligned closely with the existing research landscape. However, before sharing these implications, our groundwork has established a platform to delineate future research directions specifying (1) which stages of the ELC could receive more recognition regarding female leadership and organisational context factors, (2) how knowledge can be advanced by further testing the appropriateness of gender‐neutral versus gender‐sensitive HRM approaches, and (3) why a more nuanced approach to studying female leadership in organisations from an intersectionality perspective is needed. GIERKE ET AL. - 355 5.2 | Implications for future research Based on our review, we identified at least three broad areas for future research. First, our analysis of the ELC revealed that some stages—specifically, Learning and Development (N=10) and the Reward and Retention (N=9) —receive less research attention than others. Even more, for Reward and Retention, scholars have not covered all three research foci. Specifically, for Reward and Retention, scholars have focused on the structural level while neglecting the potential of the individual level, whereas for Learning and Development, only few studies have been conducted for the three levels. Delving into these stages is a promising avenue for future research, as it enables scholars to guide organisations in addressing the individual, cultural, and structural levels from a gender‐neutral and gender‐sensitive perspective when attempting to empower women. To illustrate, in recent publications, Bonneywell and Gannon (2022) assessed types of coaching for women as part of a more extensive development programme, and Kimball et al. (2021) compared different leadership development programmes for women. While such studies reflect gender‐sensitive approaches targeting the structural level, HRM research could benefit from more detailed insights into the setup of such programmes. For instance, in a recent meta‐analysis, Uslu et al. (2022) investigated the effectiveness of different employee training methods and concluded that ‘administering multiple methods may not be uniformly effective; rather, the method of choice may need to be tailored toward the outcomes at hand’ (Uslu et al., 2022, p. 61). In the context of female leadership and organisational context factors, HRM scholars could investigate whether specific training methods (e.g., web‐based, face‐to‐face, individual‐based, group‐based trainings) are more suitable depending on the recipients of such training programmes as well as the targeted outcome variables (e.g., advance skillset, retain employees, tackle biases). Concerning Reward and Retention, we found a strong focus on the structural level, which can be explained by most articles centring around turnover rates (e.g., Samuelson et al., 2019) and monetary compensation (Malhotra et al., 2021). However, considering that overall, around one 10th of the articles in our review could be assigned to this category and that women continue to face burdens (e.g., flexible schedules) that make it more difficult for them to retain in organisations (Thomas et al., 2023), HRM scholars should focus their efforts more firmly on this stage. For example, to better understand Reward and Retention, scholars could test the effectiveness of HRM practices specifically tailored to women, such as analysing whether HRM activities targeting the 3 Ms (i.e., menstruation, maternity, and menopause; Atkinson et al., 2021) can increase organisations' success in retaining female leaders. Secondly, a pertinent issue across all stages was that the research focus was often misaligned with the actual practices implemented by organisations or with the recommendations made by scholars for what companies should do. To address this issue, more experimental field studies—also referred to as ‘intervention studies’—could offer a promising future research avenue. Specifically, intervention studies could prove instrumental in validating the effectiveness of recommendations provided to women (e.g., in the practical implications section) for obtaining and retaining leadership positions. Whereas most extant research focuses on the somewhat ‘easier’ assessment of women's current situation in organisations (e.g., through archival data, interviews, or surveys), this limits the ability to draw causal conclusions of theoretically proposed effects (Antonakis et al., 2010). Intervention studies, in contrast, shift the focus from merely understanding the present conditions to actively testing and verifying the efficacy of measures and policy recommendations. Nevertheless, intervention studies should not be misconstrued as a cure‐all solution; they have their limitations. For example, field experiments tend to be somewhat limited in scope (i.e., they test the effects of a specific measure), are susceptible to the influence of organisational changes such as restructuring initiatives (Olsen et al., 2008), and are often conducted in a single organisational setting (i.e., generalisability concerns). Moreover, to conduct an intervention study, HRM scholars must obtain access to employees and/or leaders in organisations, which often entails overcoming bureaucratic and economic obstacles (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2012). Regardless, these difficulties should not deter researchers from striving to address the fundamental question of ‘What works?’. 356 - GIERKE ET AL. As a third future research direction, extant research still has a rather narrow focus on gender irrespective of other demographic attributes, thereby neglecting the notion that ‘experiences and career progression of women with traditionally marginalised identities’ (Thomas et al., 2023, p. 31) may be different from those of more privileged women. Historically, diversity scholars have increasingly acknowledged that people hold several identities, which constitute and reinforce one another in a dynamic process (Shields, 2008). One theoretical starting point to address these multiple identities (Petsko et al., 2022) could be the investigation of identity‐conscious interventions (Plaut et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2022) that consider gender and other dimensions (e.g., race, age, sexual orientation) that influence identity (i.e., belongingness to a group). Illustrating the potential of such more nuanced perspectives, a study with a representative sample of more than 300,000 employees did not just find that LGBT employees reported lower work experience than non‐LGBT employees but also that LGBT women felt significantly less respected and empowered in their workplace than did LGBT men (Cech & Rothwell, 2020). For HRM scholars, these findings indicate that implementing HRM interventions targeting women's advancement in organisations may miss the intended effect when other characteristics of these women (e.g., their sexual orientation, age, or ethnicity) are not considered. Applying this to the relatively under‐researched Learning and Development stage, scholars could investigate the effect of organisational diversity claims on the enrolment of female talent from various racial backgrounds in development programmes, similar to assessing organisational business versus social claims on gender composition (Abraham & Burbano, 2022). Moreover, revisiting our recommendation for Reward and Retention, which involves implementing HRM activities addressing menstruation, maternity, and menopause, scholars could broaden such initiatives by studying the effects of offers specifically tailored for women from marginalised groups. Taking such ideas even further, recent advancements of a lens‐based approach to intersectionality have stated that a person could perceive someone holding multiple social identities (e.g., a black LGBT woman) through a simplistic lens (e.g., the lens of race) or a complex lens (e.g., a race‐by‐gender lens; Petsko et al., 2022). Accordingly, future research could investigate the effectiveness of HRM practices for women with different demographic characteristics (e.g., age, ethnicity) and simultaneously account for the intersectionality lenses applied by perceivers (i.e., supervisors, colleagues, and employees). Doing so would not only allow for the consideration, revelation, and, ideally, elimination of biased intersectionality lenses but also help create more gender‐inclusive HRM practices in the long term. 5.3 | Implications for practice To provide an overview of practical implications for HRM departments, we developed Table 4. Here, we extracted and aggregated all evidence‐based research findings reported in the identified articles and sorted them by focus (individual, cultural, and structural). Beginning with the individual level, we noted, for example, that although several articles broadly suggested training programmes (see Table 3), the descriptions often fall short in specifying what should be developed. Our evidence‐based overview offers concrete insights into the skills that could be taught in such programmes (e.g., servant leadership skills; see Table 4). Similarly, the practical implication of ‘offering mentoring programs for female leaders’ tends to remain vague; yet, we do have some studies suggesting more specific design features for such programs (e.g., senior‐male mentors in male‐dominated industries, combining individual and group coaching) (cf. Bonneywell & Gannon, 2022; Ramaswami et al., 2010). On the cultural level, a plethora of HRM activities seeks to address biases and initiate culture change. In addition to training employees and leaders, an often‐overlooked recommendation is to explicitly encourage evaluators to reflect on their (potentially biased) perceptions when assessing female leaders' expertise because the recognition of expertise tends to be influenced by the evaluators' attributes (Joshi, 2014). Additionally, drawing from the contact hypothesis (Binder et al., 2009), it can be an easy‐to‐implement recommendation to create more GIERKE ET AL. - 357 TABLE 4Evidence‐based practical implications for HRM to support women in obtaining and retaining leadership positions based on the N=87 articles identified in our review. Types of organisational measures Evidence‐based practical implications for practitioners Measures targeting the individual level Leadership skills �Increase servant (Lemoine & Blum, 2019) leadership skills as well as agentic behaviours of female leaders (Badura et al., 2018; Lanaj & Hollenbeck, 2015) �Develop a cooperative climate which increases women's leadership aspirations (Fritz & van Knippenberg, 2017) �Address female employees' lower career motivation due to a lack of organisational development opportunities through allocating more training and development opportunities, career encouragement and challenging work to female employees (Hoobler et al., 2011) Mentoring and networking �Provide mentoring opportunities especially for female first‐time directors (McDonald & Westphal, 2013) �Increase the visibility of women through senior‐male mentors in male‐ dominated industries (Ramaswami et al., 2010) �Help women to gain social capital by leveraging the power of their own networking approach (de Klerk & Verreynne, 2017) �Provide a combination of individual and group coaching for developing female leaders (Bonneywell & Gannon, 2022) Measures targeting the cultural level Biases �Reflect on the (biased) perceptions of evaluators when evaluating female leaders' expertise because the recognition of expertise is mainly driven by the evaluators' attributes (Joshi, 2014) �Create positive experiences for employees with female leaders to reduce gender biases (Duehr & Bono, 2006) Cultural change �Question the status quo and confront social defences, such as hegemonic narratives, which maintain existing power structures and hinder the advancement of women (Padavic et al., 2020) �Position women as catalysts for cultural transformation because they cultivate a more female‐friendly culture (Tate & Yang, 2015) �Promote the use of gender‐inclusive language rather than masculine generic terms (e.g., head instead of master; Bailey et al., 2022) �Organisations should improve their involvement (i.e., most employees are highly involved in their work) and mission (i.e., there is a long‐term purpose and direction) culture (Roebuck et al., 2019) Measures targeting the structural level Job application �Reflect on wording in job advertisements because the wording impacts female candidates' feelings of belongingness when the recruiter is male (Hentschel et al., 2021) �Reflect on how to communicate rejections to applicants against the backdrop that women are less likely to re‐apply after a job rejection (Brands & Fernandez‐Mateo, 2017) �Consider the implementation of a female quota as it is associated with mixed findings in increasing the representation of women in corporate boards (Seierstad et al., 2021), and in top executive or top earning positions (Maida & Weber, 2022) 358 - GIERKE ET AL. TABLE 4(Continued) Types of organisational measures Evidence‐based practical implications for practitioners �Selection process must clearly define the required and the preferred qualifications (van Esch et al., 2018) Hiring �Recognise that the chance of new job openings being filled with women increases when the share of female organisational members is higher (Cohen & Broschak, 2013) �The appointment of a woman CEO may help foster more balanced boards over time, particularly in national contexts of lower gender equality (Halliday et al., 2021) Communication �Strengthen communication plans that support the introduction of quotas for women in leadership positions, thereby particularly providing narratives about women's agency and communality (Mölders et al., 2018) �Organisations must do more to combat negative assumptions surrounding the appointment of female directors, for instance, by being more transparent and systematic regarding how directors are nominated and selected (Malhotra, 2021) �Organisations should state that all stakeholders are supportive of the appointment of a new leader prior to his or her entry into the organisation (Rink et al., 2013) Career progression �Establish an opt‐out instead of an opt‐in mechanism for leadership succession (Erkal et al., 2022) �Reflect on performance appraisal by supervisors against the backdrop that women are held to stricter standards for job promotions (Lyness & Heilman, 2006) �Encourage male higher‐level managers to empower women because male predecessors can pave the way for female CEOs through gender‐inclusive gatekeeping (Dwivedi et al., 2018) �Consider that better performing incumbent managers are more likely to suggest a female successor (Virick & Greer, 2012) �Reflect on promotion packages against the backdrop that job promotions impact women's (compared to men's) job satisfaction to a lesser positive extent (Otto et al., 2022) Number of women �Increase the number of women (especially middle managers) to achieve a more equal gender ratio and higher leadership aspirations among women (Ali et al., 2021) �Increase the share of women in top leadership as it supports further growth of women in managerial positions (Kurtulus & Tomaskovic‐Devey, 2012) �As a succession planning practice, increase the amount of diverse talent to prevent tokenism and related effects (Greer & Virick, 2008) �Increase the proportion of women represented in the candidate pool to enhance the probability that a women will be selected (Tinsley et al., 2017) �Hiring female managers results in the hiring of more female managers in the subsequent period (Bossler et al., 2020) �Since women are less willing to lead teams with a male majority than those with a female majority, quotas may benefit not only the women directly affected by (Continues) GIERKE ET AL. - 359 Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 475–485. https://doi.org/10.2307/257836 Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Differentiating biases from genuine heterogeneity: Distinguishing artifactual from substantive effects. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta‐analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 287–302). Wiley and Sons. Jacobsen, D. H., Stea, D., & Soda, G. (2022). Intraorganizational network dynamics: Past progress, current challenges, and new frontiers. The Academy of Management Annals,16(2), 853–897. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0369 Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Scharfenkamp, K. (2023). Women directors, board attendance, and corporate financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12525 Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. L., & Schneider, S. C. (2010). Gender differences in leadership – believing is seeing: Implications for managing diversity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,29(6), 549–572. https://doi.org/10. 1108/02610151011067504 *Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women's expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,59(2), 202–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0001839214528331 *Kaiser, C. R., & Spalding, K. E. (2015). Do women who succeed in male‐dominated domains help other women? The moderating role of gender identification. European Journal of Social Psychology,45(5), 599–608. https://doi.org/10. 1002/ejsp.2113 *Kaiser, R. B., & Wallace, W. T. (2016). Gender bias and substantive differences in ratings of leadership behavior: Toward a new narrative. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,68(1), 72–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000059 Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology,82(5), 965–990. https://doi.org/10.1086/226425 Kapoor, D., Sardana, T., & Sharma, D. (2021). Women as leaders: A systematic review of glass ceiling and organisational development. The International Journal of Indian Psychology,9(1), 572–591. Khushk, A., Zengtian, Z., & Hui, Y. (2023). Role of female leadership in corporate innovation: A systematic literature review. Gender in Management: International Journal,38(3), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/gm‐01‐2022‐0028 *Kimball, T. D., Reichard, R. J., & Chan, E. L. (2021). Women's leader development programs: Current landscape and recommendations for future programs. The Journal of Business Diversity,21(4), 1–19. King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F. (2010). Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of a psychological climate of gender inequity. Journal of Management,36(2), 482–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206308328508 Klotz, A. C., Swider, B. W., Shao, Y., & Prengler, M. K. (2021). The paths from insider to outsider: A review of employee exit transitions. Human Resource Management,60(1), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22033 *Ko, I., Kotrba, L., & Roebuck, A. (2015). Leaders as males? The role of industry gender composition. Sex Roles,72(7–8), 294– 307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199‐015‐0462‐4 Koburtay, T., Syed, J., & Haloub, R. (2019). Congruity between the female gender role and the leader role: A literature review. European Business Review,31(6), 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr‐05‐2018‐0095 Kroese, I. (2022). Is employee training really gender‐neutral? Introducing a sex/gender‐sensitive model of training. Human Resource Management Review,32(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100890 *Kurtulus, F. A., & Tomaskovic‐Devey, D. (2012). Do female top managers help women to advance? A panel study using EEO‐1 records. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,639(1), 173–197. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0002716211418445 *Lanaj, K., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2015). Leadership over‐emergence in self‐managing teams: The role of gender and countervailing biases. Academy of Management Journal,58(5), 1476–1494. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0303 Langhof, J. G., & Güldenberg, S. (2020). Servant leadership: A systematic literature review—toward a model of antecedents and outcomes. German Journal of Human Resource Management,34(1), 32–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2397002219869903 Lau, V. W., Scott, V. L., Warren, M. A., & Bligh, M. C. (2023). Moving from problems to solutions: A review of gender equality interventions at work using an ecological systems approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior,44(2), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2654 Lawler, E. E. (2007). Why HR practices are not evidence‐based. Academy of Management Journal,50(5), 1033–1036. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.27155013 *Lee, M., & Huang, L. (2018). Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organization Science,29(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1172 *Lemoine, G. J., & Blum, T. (2019). Servant leadership, leader gender, and team gender role: Testing a female advantage in a cascading model of performance. Personnel Psychology,74(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12379 366 - GIERKE ET AL. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science,5, 1–9. *Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper‐level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology,91(4), 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.91. 4.777 *Maida, A., & Weber, A. (2022). Female leadership and gender gap within firms: Evidence from an Italian board reform. ILR Review,75(2), 488–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793920961995 Makkonen, T. (2022). Board diversity and firm innovation: A meta‐analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(6), 941–960. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim‐09‐2021‐0474 *Malhotra, S., Shen, W., & Zhu, P. (2021). A vicious cycle of symbolic tokenism: The gendered effects of external board memberships on chief executive officer compensation. Human Resource Management,60(4), 617–639. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/hrm.22055 *Manzi, F., & Heilman, M. E. (2021). Breaking the glass ceiling: For one and all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000260 Martin, A. E., & Phillips, K. W. (2017). What ‘blindness’ to gender differences helps women see and do: Implications for confidence, agency, and action in male‐dominated environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,142, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.004 Martin, A. E., & Phillips, K. W. (2019). Blind to bias: The benefits of gender‐blindness for STEM stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,82, 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.11.003 McDermott, R. (2023). On the scientific study of small samples: Challenges confronting quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The Leadership Quarterly,34(3), 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101675 *McDonald, M., & Westphal, J. D. (2013). Access denied: Low mentoring of women and minority first‐time directors and its negative effects on appointments to additional boards. Academy of Management Journal,56(4), 1169–1198. https://doi. org/10.5465/amj.2011.0230 *McGinn, K. L., & Milkman, K. L. (2013). Looking up and looking out: Career mobility effects of demographic similarity among professionals. Organization Science,24(4), 1041–1060. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0778 McKinnon, A. C. (2017). Starry‐eyed II: The logistics journal ranking debate revisited. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,47(6), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm‐02‐2017‐0097 Mishra, M., Ghosh, K., & Sharma, D. (2022). Unethical pro‐organizational behavior: A systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics,179(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐021‐04764‐w *Mitra, A., Post, C., & Sauerwald, S. (2021). Evaluating board candidates: A threat‐contingency model of shareholder dissent against female director candidates. Organization Science,32(1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1386 *Mölders, S., Brosi, P., Bekk, M., Spörrle, M., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). Support for quotas for women in leadership: The influence of gender stereotypes. Human Resource Management,57(4), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21882 Morrissey, C. S., & Schmidt, M. L. (2008). Fixing the system, not the women: An innovative approach to faculty advancement. Journal of Women's Health,17(8), 1399–1408. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2007.0708 Mun, E., & Jung, J. (2018). Change above the glass ceiling: Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity in Japanese firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,63(2), 409–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217712920 *Murray, P. A., & Syed, J. (2010). Gendered observations and experiences in executive women's work. Human Resource Management Journal,20(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748‐8583.2009.00113.x Nagendra, A. (2014). Paradigm shift in HR practices on employee life cycle due to influence of social media. Procedia Economics and Finance,11, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212‐5671(14)00188‐9 Netchaeva, E., Sheppard, L. D., & Balushkina, T. (2022). A meta‐analytic review of the gender difference in leadership aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior,137, 103744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103744 *Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2017). The glass ceiling in context: The influence of CEO gender, recruitment practices and firm internationalisation on the representation of women in management. Human Resource Management Journal,27(1), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748‐8583.12135 Ngayo Fotso, G. M. (2021). Leadership competencies for the 21st century: A review from the western world literature. European Journal of Training and Development,45(6/7), 566–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd‐04‐2020‐0078 Oc, B. (2018). Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly,29(1), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.004 Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences in managers' developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal,37(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.5465/256769 Olsen, O., Albertsen, K., Nielsen, M. L., Poulsen, K. B., Gron, S. M. F., & Brunnberg, H. L. (2008). Workplace restructurings in intervention studies–a challenge for design, analysis and interpretation. BMC Medical Research Methodology,8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471‐2288‐8‐39 GIERKE ET AL. - 367 *Opoku, A., & Williams, N. (2019). Second‐generation gender bias: An exploratory study of the women’s leadership gap in a UK construction organisation. International Journal of Ethics and Systems,35(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoes‐ 05‐2018‐0079 Ortiz‐Ospina, E., Tzvetkova, S., & Roser, M. (2018). Women’s employment. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/female‐labor‐supply [Online Resource]. Østergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy,40(3), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.004 *Otto, S., Dekker, V., Dekker, H., Richter, D., & Zabel, S. (2022). The joy of gratifications: Promotion as a short‐term boost or long‐term success–The same for women and men? Human Resource Management Journal,32(1), 151–168. https://doi. org/10.1111/1748‐8583.12402 *Padavic, I., Ely, R. J., & Reid, E. M. (2020). Explaining the persistence of gender inequality: The work–family narrative as a social defense against the 24/7 work culture. Administrative Science Quarterly,66(1), 61–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0001839219832310 *Paustian‐Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta‐analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(6), 1129–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0036751 Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn Z (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. Petsko, C. D., Rosette, A. S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2022). Through the looking glass: A lens‐based account of intersectional stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,123(4), 763–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000382 *Pichler, S., Simpson, P. A., & Stroh, L. K. (2008). The glass ceiling in human resources: Exploring the link between women's representation in management and the practices of strategic human resource management and employee involvement. Human Resource Management,47(3), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20227 Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., Hurd, K., & Romano, C. A. (2018). Do color blindness and multiculturalism remedy or foster discrimination and racism? Current Directions in Psychological Science,27(3), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0963721418766068 Porter, L. W., & McLaughlin, G. B. (2006). Leadership and the organizational context: Like the weather? The Leadership Quarterly,17(6), 559–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.002 Potočnik, K., Anderson, N. R., Born, M., Kleinmann, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2021). Paving the way for research in recruitment and selection: Recent developments, challenges and future opportunities. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,30(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2021.1904898 Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2015). The glass ceiling: What have we learned 20 years on? Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,2(4), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/joepp‐09‐2015‐0032 *Ramaswami, A., Dreher, G. F., Bretz, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2010). Gender, mentoring, and career success: The importance of organizational context. Personnel Psychology,63(2), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐6570.2010.01174.x Reichel, A., Scheibmayr, I., & Brandl, J. (2020). The HR lady is on board: Untangling the link between HRM's feminine image and HRM's board representation. Human Resource Management Journal,30(4), 586–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1748‐8583.12263 *Rink, F., Ryan, M. K., & Stoker, J. I. (2013). Social resources at a time of crisis: How gender stereotypes inform gendered leader evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology,43(5), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1954 *Roebuck, A., Thomas, A., & Biermeier‐Hanson, B. (2019). Organizational culture mitigates lower ratings of female supervisors. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,26(4), 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1548051818781815 Rojon, C., McDowall, A., & Saunders, M. N. (2011). On the experience of conducting a systematic review in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Journal of Personnel Psychology,10(3), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866‐5888/ a000041 Rojon, C., Okupe, A., & McDowall, A. (2021). Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal of Management Reviews,23(2), 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12245 Rosenberg, C., Walker, A., Leiter, M., & Graffam, J. (2021). Humor in workplace leadership: A systematic search scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology,12, 3138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.610795 Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2021). Age inclusive human resource practices, age diversity climate, and work ability: Exploring between‐and within‐person indirect effects. Work, Aging and Retirement,7(4), 387–403. https://doi.org/10. 1093/workar/waaa008 Rynes, S. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2017). Evidence‐based management: Foundations, development, controversies and future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4(1), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev‐orgpsych‐032516‐113306 368 - GIERKE ET AL. *Samuelson, H. L., Levine, B. R., Barth, S. E., Wessel, J. L., & Grand, J. A. (2019). Exploring women’s leadership labyrinth: Effects of hiring and developmental opportunities on gender stratification. The Leadership Quarterly,30(6), 101314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101314 Scheibmayr, I., & Reichel, A. (2023). Who benefits from (human resource management) professionalization? The moderating role of gender on professionalization effects in organisations. Human Resource Management Journal, 1–26. https://doi. org/10.1111/1748‐8583.12508 Schein, E. H. (2010). In Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley and Sons. *Scott, K. A., & Brown, D. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,101(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.002 Scullion, H., Collings, D. G., & Gunnigle, P. (2007). International human resource management in the 21st century: Emerging themes and contemporary debates. Human Resource Management Journal,17(4), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1748‐8583.2007.00047.x Searle, R. H. & Skinner, D. (Eds.) (2011)., Trust and human resource management. Edward Elgar. *Seierstad, C., Healy, G., Sønju Le Bruyn Goldeng, E., & Fjellvær, H. (2021). A “quota silo” or positive equality reach? The equality impact of gender quotas on corporate boards in Norway. Human Resource Management Journal,31(1), 165– 186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748‐8583.12288 *Servon, L. J., & Visser, M. A. (2011). Progress hindered: The retention and advancement of women in science, engineering and technology careers. Human Resource Management Journal,21(3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748‐8583. 2010.00152.x Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. (2023). Partnering up: Including managers as research partners in systematic reviews. Organizational Research Methods,26(2), 262–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120965706 Shen, W., & Joseph, D. L. (2021). Gender and leadership: A criterion‐focused review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review,31(2), 100765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100765 Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles,59(5–6), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199‐008‐9501‐8 Shyam, B. R., & Ramachandra Gowda, N. K. (2016). A comparative study of dynamic nature of product life cycle stimulating employee life cycle. Adarsh Journal of Management Research,8(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.21095/ajmr/2015/v8/i2/ 88210 Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta‐analyses, and meta‐syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology,70(1), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐010418‐102803 Sieweke, J., Bostandzic, D., & Smolinski, S. M. (2023). The influence of top management team gender diversity on firm performance during stable periods and economic crises: An instrumental variable analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 101703. Advance online publication. Smither, L. (2003). Managing employee life cycles to improve labor retention. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 3(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1532‐6748(2003)3:1(19) Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 Sumelius, J., Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., & Smale, A. (2014). What determines employee perceptions of HRM process features? The case of performance appraisal in MNC subsidiaries. Human Resource Management,53(4), 569– 592. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21604 *Taiyi Yan, T., Tangirala, S., Vadera, A. K., & Ekkirala, S. (2022). How Employees Learn to speak up from their leaders: Gender congruity effects in the development of voice self‐efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology,107(4), 650–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000892 Taparia, M., & Lenka, U. (2022). An integrated conceptual framework of the glass ceiling effect. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,9(3), 372–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/joepp‐06‐2020‐0098 *Taser‐Erdogan, D. (2022). Careers advancement of women: Applying a multi‐level relational perspective in the context of Turkish banking organisations. Human Relations,75(6), 1053–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211002244 *Tate, G., & Yang, L. (2015). Female leadership and gender equity: Evidence from plant closure. Journal of Financial Economics,117(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.01.004 Thomas, R., Fairchild, C., Cardazone, G., Cooper, M., Fielding‐Singh, P., Noble‐Tolla, M., Burton, A., Krivovich, A., Yee, L., Field, E., Robinson, N., & Kuegele, S. (2023). Women in the workplace 2023, 1–52. McKinsey.https://www.mckinsey. com/featured‐insights/diversity‐and‐inclusion/women‐in‐the‐workplace *Tinsley, C. H., Wade, J. B., Main, B. G., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2017). Gender diversity on US corporate boards: Are we running in place? ILR Review,70(1), 160–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793916668356 Tkachenko, O., Hahn, H. J., & Peterson, S. L. (2017). Research–practice gap in applied fields: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review,16(3), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317707562 GIERKE ET AL. - 369 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management,14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467‐8551.00375 *Triana, M. C., Richard, O. C., & Yücel, I. (2017). Status incongruence and supervisor gender as moderators of the transformational leadership to subordinate affective organizational commitment relationship. Personnel Psychology,70(2), 429–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12154 Ugarte, S. M., & Rubery, J. (2021). Gender pay equity: Exploring the impact of formal, consistent and transparent human resource management practices and information. Human Resource Management Journal,31(1), 242–258. https://doi. org/10.1111/1748‐8583.12296 Umeh, C., Cornelius, N., & Wallace, J. (2023). Exploring equality, diversity, and inclusion in multiethnic settings: A context‐ sensitive approach. Human Resource Management Journal,33(1), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748‐8583.12441 Uslu, D., Marcus, J., & Kisbu‐Sakarya, Y. (2022). Toward optimized effectiveness of employee training programs: A meta‐ analysis. Journal of Personnel Psychology,21(2), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866‐5888/a000290 *van Emmerik, H., Wendt, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2010). Gender ratio, societal culture, and male and female leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,83(4), 895–914. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909x478548 *van Esch, C., Hopkins, M. M., O'Neil, D. A., & Bilimoria, D. (2018). How perceived riskiness influences the selection of women and men as senior leaders. Human Resource Management,57(4), 915–930. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21902 *Vial, A. C., Brescoll, V. L., Napier, J. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Tyler, T. R. (2018). Differential support for female supervisors among men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology,103(2), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000258 *Viallon, M. L., & Martinot, D. (2009). The effects of solo status on women’s and men’s success: The moderating role of the performance context. European Journal of Psychology of Education,24(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/ bf03173011 Vincent‐Lancrin, S. (2008). The reversal of gender inequalities in higher education: An on‐going trend. In Higher education to 2030, volume 1, demography (pp. 265–298). OECD Publishing. *Virick, M., & Greer, C. R. (2012). Gender diversity in leadership succession: Preparing for the future. Human Resource Management,51(4), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21487 *Walker, R. C., & Aritz, J. (2015). Women doing leadership: Leadership styles and organizational culture. International Journal of Business Communication,52(4), 452–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415598429 *Wang, G., Holmes, R. M., Devine, R. A., & Bishoff, J. (2018). CEO gender differences in careers and the moderating role of country culture: A meta‐analytic investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,148, 30–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.04.002 Wang, W., Dinh, J. V., Jones, K. S., Upadhyay, S., & Yang, J. (2022). Corporate diversity statements and employees’ online DEI ratings: An unsupervised machine‐learning text‐mining analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology,38(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐022‐09819‐x Woodhams, C., & Lupton, B. (2006). Gender‐based equal opportunities policy and practice in small firms: The impact of HR professionals. Human Resource Management Journal,16(1), 74–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748‐8583.2006.00005.x World Economic Forum. (2023). Global gender gap report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/publications/ global‐gender‐gap‐report‐2023/ Wyse, D. (2017). Writing a world‐leading (four star) publication. British Education Research Association. Retrieved from https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/writing‐a‐world‐leading‐four‐star‐publication#:~:text=The%20idea%20that% 20research%20could,originality%2C%20significance%20and%20rigour Young, D. (2004). Human Resources have a vital role to play within employee identity and access management. Network Security,2004(11), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1353‐4858(04)00154‐0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article. How to cite this article: Gierke, L. A., Schlamp, S., & Gerpott, F. H. (2025). Which organisational context factors help women to obtain and retain leadership positions in the 21st century? A systematic review and research agenda for human resource management. Human Resource Management Journal,35(1), 336–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12568 370 - GIERKE ET AL.