research on women's career development

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 21 July 2023

Determining factors and alternatives for the career development of women executives: a multicriteria decision model

• María Luz Martín-Peña   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6700-6293 1 ,
• Cristina R. Cachón-García 2 &
• María A. De Vicente y Oliva 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  436 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2246 Accesses

Metrics details

• Business and management

Despite advances in women’s access to managerial positions, the glass ceiling still restricts women’s participation in corporate decision-making. Theoretical studies have examined the determining factors and career alternatives for women’s professional development to understand the roots of this problem. However, analysis aimed at establishing the causal relationships and exploring the implications of this phenomenon is missing from the literature. To fill this gap, this paper provides an overview of the determinants of the career development of women executives and explores how these factors influence their alternatives for professional development. A sample of Spanish women executives is examined using multicriteria decision techniques, and associations are established between factors and alternatives for women executives’ career development. This paper contributes to the topic of gender in management literature by enhancing the theoretical foundations and empirical validation surrounding the phenomenon of the glass ceiling. It has managerial implications in providing companies with an empirical basis for understanding the orientation of women’s career development.

Similar content being viewed by others

A study of factors affecting women’s lived experiences in STEM

CEOs’ early famine experience, managerial discretion and corporate social responsibility

The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research impact and its evaluation, introduction.

In developed societies, important economic, social, political and technological changes have led to a new relationship between work and family (Barnett, 2004 ). This relationship is concerned with the responsibilities of men and women regarding tasks in the work and family spheres. The literature has examined the repercussions of the incorporation of women into the workplace, given that they are the group that is most heavily affected by the work–family relationship. In the last two decades, researchers have shown a growing interest in this area (Rodríguez, 2009 ; Mensi-Klarbach, 2014 ; Babic and Hansez, 2021 ). This research refers to the glass ceiling as it suggests the growing inequalities between men and women as they progress in their professional careers within the organization (Cotter et al., 2001 ).

The glass ceiling refers to the fact that a qualified person wishing to advance within the hierarchy of his or her organization is stopped at a lower level due to discrimination. Thus, the glass ceiling refers to the vertical discrimination that most often occurs against women in organizations (Bendl and Schmidt, 2010 ) and the discriminatory barriers that prevent women from reaching positions of power or responsibility and advancing to higher positions within an organization simply because they are women (Li, Wang Leung, 2001 ; Jackson and O’Callaghan, 2009 ; Zeng, 2011 ). According to Díez-Gutiérrez et al. ( 2009 ), the glass ceiling explains the low level of women’s leadership in organizations, given the invisible barriers that limit their access.

The study of the glass ceiling, in terms of its determining factors, has received scholars’ attention (Kaftandzieva and Nakov, 2021 ).

In an attempt to remove the glass ceiling, authorities are implementing legislation and public policies to stop discrimination against women in the workplace and encourage a work–life balance. However, these actions usually have little impact at the executive level, given that they are more focused on the lower echelons of the organizational pyramid. Women are still largely underrepresented in management and decision-making processes across all sectors (Babic and Hansez, 2021 ).

Studies of the glass ceiling tackle the issue from different perspectives (Selva et al., 2011 ). Much of the literature focuses on the obstacles (barriers) and opportunities (facilitators) for women in developing their careers as executives (Van’t Foort-Diepeveen et al., 2021 ; Zabludovsky, 2007 ). Studies of experience and action have examined the perceptions of women throughout their career paths, with a special focus on the analysis of entrepreneurship (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013 ). Compare-and-contrast studies have shown differences between men and women in terms of leadership, expectations and gender (Klenke, 2003 ). Studies of professional success refer to the outcomes and achievements that explain the progress of women and predict the success of women executives (Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ). A focus on institutional solutions is found in studies that propose measures for equitable promotion and diversity management to encourage the presence of women in executive positions (Sullivan and Mainiero, 2008 ).

Most of these studies focus on the inequality between the careers of women and those of men (Ackah and Heaton, 2003 ) and the determining factors in women’s career development (Doubell and Struwig, 2014 ). However, there is a gap in the literature left by the scarcity of studies that examine the factors of women’s professional development and link them to the alternatives for women on their executive career path. Women’s choice of alternative for career development is, in essence, a decision problem, conditioned by a series of factors and scenarios (Nyberg et al., 2015 ). Moreover, almost all the existing studies are theoretical, with a lack of empirical research in this area. In this context, this study poses the following research question: what are the determining factors in the career of women executives and how do they relate to the alternatives available to women in their managerial careers?

The aim of the current paper is to offer an empirical analysis of the determining factors in the career of women executives and examine how they influence the alternatives for such women. The paper thus responds to calls by Elacqua et al. ( 2009 ) to further the understanding of the glass ceiling by examining other potentially important variables. This study is an attempt to enrich the model proposed by Elacqua et al. ( 2009 ) by including additional factors and complete the analysis with the inclusion of professional development alternatives.

This study follows the traditions of research on barriers/facilitators and professional success. The aim is to identify the factors that not only limit but also encourage the professional development of women executives and then link these factors to different career alternatives. To achieve this aim, a theoretical model of analysis, with several corresponding hypotheses, is presented. These hypotheses are then empirically tested using a multicriteria decision model. The empirical analysis uses data from a questionnaire completed by women executives.

The originality of the study is based on the association of factors (both barriers and facilitators) and alternatives of development in the career of women executives, since no work has yet addressed these relationships, as well as in the empirical analysis based on multicriteria decision techniques, as a novel methodology in the analysis of the gender issue in the management literature.

By investigating these issues, the present study addresses specific recommendations while filling gaps in the literature on the glass ceiling. Through this research, it is hoped that a better understanding of this phenomenon can be achieved by considering both its antecedents and its possible consequences for women’s career development.

Background: theoretical framework

Determining factors of women’s career development.

The literature on the factors that determine the career development of women executives provides a number of classifications of these factors. There is no universally accepted classification, but there is agreement regarding the most influential factors.

One way of classifying these factors is to separate them into factors related to the social context, organizational context , and individual context (e.g. Mensi-Klarbach, 2014 ; Fagenson, 1990 ). In the social context, organizations operate within an environment with certain circumstances, where vertical and horizontal segregation emerges as an element that determines the career of women. The organizational context refers to the behaviour of organizations, which should take into consideration gender identity and equality. The individual context refers to the individual characteristics of people, which have a direct impact on the contribution of women executives to organizations. For example, Oakley ( 2000 ) differentiated between corporate (or organizational) factors, which relate to processes of recruitment, selection, retention and promotion of women, and cultural and behavioural factors, which relate to social factors based on leadership style and power stereotypes.

Other classifications differentiate between positive and negative factors (Pletzer et al., 2015 ; Dezsö and Ross, 2012 ). Such classifications place the focus on the positive or negative impact of the presence of women in top management on business performance.

Most authors differentiate between internal and external factors (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013 ). External factors are those of a sociodemographic nature, which define differences in leadership and gender stereotypes. Internal factors are those of a cultural nature, which have a key function in female gender roles. They are also linked to the socially desirable behaviour of women, which is associated with a sense of duty, a willingness to serve, and a lack of competitiveness or ambition to hold power.

A widely used classification is that of Elacqua et al. ( 2009 ), who separated factors into interpersonal and situational factors. Examples of interpersonal factors are mentoring, the existence of an informal network of senior managers and friendly relations with company decision-makers. These concepts are all related to career advancement. Examples of situational factors are the existence of objective criteria for company procedures such as hiring and promotion and the number of women who have been in management positions long enough to be seriously considered for promotion.

Based on these examples from the literature, a classification of factors was designed for this study to meet most of the aforementioned criteria. Several considerations were made. First, in the classifications discussed here, the difference between internal and external factors is unclear. External factors are those that are separate from the organization and personal circumstances, but internal factors are not clearly defined. Therefore, in the proposed classification, the label “internal factor” has been replaced by “personal factor” to cover factors that depend directly on the personal and individual circumstances of each woman. Second, to capture factors that refer to the social context, such as gender stereotypes and public policies, the label “social factors” is used. Finally, organizational factors are clearer in terms of content. This group of factors has been retained, as in many previous classifications. Hence, the classification used for the present study consists of personal, organizational and social factors.

Personal factors are those that are individual and inherent to each person. This category includes family responsibility, education and development, and internal factors. The literature examines family responsibility from an individual woman’s perspective in terms of marital status, number of children, age, type of family, and so on (Zabludovsky, 2007 ; Cuadrado and Morales, 2007 ). Education and development act as a differentiator linked to each and every person. Traditionally, it was said that women lacked the training needed to reach executive positions. However, this element has shifted from a barrier to a facilitator (Ridgeway, 2001 ). Internal factors cover elements rooted in personality, such as self-esteem, belief and confidence.

Organizational factors cover factors linked to the organization, such as leadership, organizational culture, organizational support, and social and professional networks. Leadership refers to different leadership styles and the different qualities of men or women for leadership (Rodríguez, 2009 ). In the organizational sphere, leadership is described as a masculine pursuit (O’Neil et al., 2008 ). The organizational culture, or the values shared by all members of an organization, directly depends on the organization (Peters and Waterman, 1982 ). Organizational support refers to the internal support that a company gives its members (Bilimoria and Piderit, 2007 ). A lack of mentors and role models is also considered by some authors (Giscombe and Mattis, 2002 ; Cohen et al., 2020 ). The social or professional network refers to the relationships that are directly or indirectly linked to work and that give women access to resources that can affect their progress. Examples of these resources include salaries, promotions, and personal and professional recognition. These networks provide access to valuable resources and information for professional development (Terjesen, 2005 ; Dezsö and Ross, 2012 ).

Social factors are shaped by the context and contingencies of the outside world. They include gender stereotypes, as well as public policies and work–life balance policies. Gender stereotypes are the ideas that men and women have about the other gender depending on the social roles played by each one (Van’t Foort-Diepeveen et al., 2021 ; Eagly, 1987 ). Senior management is generally considered the pursuit of men, with stereotypes underlining the familiar roles that women play as mothers, wives, nurses and so on, as well as the characteristics they embody (Kaftandzieva and Nakov, 2021 ). Public policies and work–life balance policies refer to government regulations on equality (Marzec and Szczudlińska-Kanoś, 2023 ).

Career development alternatives

The literature does not provide a list of career development alternatives. Instead, these alternatives must be deduced from studies of professional success. Therefore, it is important to consider the concept of the career path to identify the alternatives for women executives in their professional development.

Professional development, at both the executive and non-executive levels, is shaped by different stages that lead people up the hierarchy. The career path refers to the different stages that individuals experience in a given profession. It can be thought of as a process that consists of exploring options and possibilities, planning actions that lead to an option and progressing in a vocational role. Women’s internal dispositions in terms of their beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions may enable or constrain their career ambitions (Mckelway, 2018 ).

Some authors have reported that sponsored mobility (promoted by a superior) is the predominant form of mobility in organizations (Morgan, 2017 ). Others have also noted that having contacts and longevity within a firm are the keys for women to access decision-making positions (O’Neil et al., 2008 ). In general, the literature presents the following development alternatives: internal promotion, external promotion, salary raises, entrepreneurship, remaining at the same company in the same position with the same salary, and abandoning an executive career (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ; Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ; Nyberg et al., 2015 ; Dezsö and Ross, 2012 ; Pletzer et al., 2015 ; Doubell and Struwig, 2014 , Huang et al., 2007 ).

The typical way for women to access high-level positions is through promotion (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ). Internal promotion is the most common form of promotion given that the promoted woman is already known at the company and has a certain degree of recognition (Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ). Internal promotion is part of a decision-making process, such that women have the last word according to their personal situation (Nyberg et al., 2015 ).

External promotion is another alternative, although women find it harder than men (ILO, 2017 ). Objective measures of personal selection are being introduced, but these measures have been unable to eliminate discrimination because men are more flexible in terms of mobility (Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ).

As a development alternative, a raise in salary is normally linked to working more hours per week. However, it is often unaccompanied by a higher position or level of responsibility. Nevertheless, it does count as an advance in professional development because it is thought of as a recognition of the worker’s role (Nyberg et al., 2015 ).

Another alternative is entrepreneurship (Bruni et al., 2004 ). The reasons that push women into entrepreneurship are the search for a work–life balance, a propensity for risk, the need to develop business skills, and the search for self-employment that offers greater financial earnings (Rey-Martí et al., 2015 ). The option of entrepreneurship has also been discussed from the point of view of diversity and as an alternative for the professional development of women in a liberal environment where they can better develop their leadership skills (Welter et al., 2017 ).

Based on this discussion, the possible alternatives for the career development of women executives are internal promotion, external promotion, entrepreneurship, salary raises and abandonment. The last of these alternatives, abandonment of an executive career, is not included in this study because it involves leaving the career path of interest. The alternative of salary raises without a corresponding increase in responsibility is also omitted from this study because it is uncommon and because a salary increase with a corresponding improvement in position within the company is covered by the alternative of internal promotion.

Hypotheses definition and analysis model

Based on the literature review and taking into account the objective of this research, Fig. 1 presents the areas of study of the basic model of analysis, which make it possible to relate the factors to the different alternatives for the development of the professional careers of women managers.

Basic model of analysis: areas of study.

Alternatives, as reported in the literature, can be influenced by factors that favour or limit the alternative itself. Several hypotheses are therefore proposed.

Alternative internal promotion: antecedent/conditioning factors

Traditionally, one of the main reasons for the low presence of women in management has been their lack of training. However, this situation has changed in recent decades (Ridgeway, 2001 ; Anca and Aragón, 2007 ). Various international statistics show an increase in the number of women graduates in higher education, outnumbering men in many disciplines (social sciences, humanities and health) and growing in technical fields (World Economic Forum, 2022 ). This more specific training, which tends towards professional care and service occupations, marks horizontal occupational segregation (Halpern, 2005 ; Clancy, 2007 ) that limits access to senior management (Oakley, 2000 ). De Vos and De Hauw ( 2010 ) argue that education and training programmes have a direct impact on women’s success in the workplace.

In this context, women managers can be promoted internally on their own merits, based on training and development and on-the-job performance (Ng et al., 2005 ; Nyberg et al., 2015 ). It is assumed that there is a positive relationship between the training and development factor and internal promotion, which leads to Hypothesis 1.

H1. There is a positive relationship between the “training and development” factor and the “internal promotion” alternative .

A critical factor in enabling women to develop their careers is organizational fit, which is the ability to fit in and adapt to the culture of the organization (Lyness and Thompson, 2000 ). The most successful women are those who have managed their "organizational fit". Men, on the other hand, are more mobile and find it easier to move from organization to organization in search of higher positions (Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ).

Organizational culture has evolved to overcome the asymmetry between men and women for managerial positions (Bilimoria and Piderit, 2007 ; Wajcman and Martin, 2002 ). The change in organizational culture has a direct impact on gender identity and pre-established roles (Kerr and Sweetman, 2003 ; Palermo, 2004 ; Dzubinski et al., 2019 ). In this context, the organizational culture factor may facilitate the internal promotion of women to managerial positions. This leads to Hypothesis 2.

H2. There is a positive relationship between the “organizational culture” factor and the “internal promotion” alternative .

Organizational support is the support that the organization itself gives to women, as specified in mentoring and coaching processes (Sealy and Singh, 2009 ), as well as the support of the immediate supervisor (Ng et al., 2005 ). This support provides women with greater security and confidence (Bilimoria and Piderit, 2007 ), which enhances their performance. In this context, women usually gain access to positions through internal promotion, after gaining the trust of the employer and the management team by demonstrating their professional value over the years (Barberá et al., 2003 ), given that seniority in the company is essential for a woman to gain access to a decision-making position (Oakley, 2000 ). Under these premises, Hypothesis 3 is proposed.

H3. There is a positive relationship between the “organizational support” factor and the “internal promotion” alternative .

Social and professional networks allow access to information and resources and facilitate career advancement (Seibert et al., 2001 ; Terjesen, 2005 ). Some authors recognize that their use facilitates faster career promotion (Dezsö and Ross, 2012 ).

However, the use of social and professional networks differs between men and women (Burke, 2009 ; Terjesen, 2005 ). Mainly because women generally spend less time building professional relationships with colleagues, they spend less time socializing and interacting (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ). In many cases, in order to balance work and private life, women reduce their working hours, take maternity leave and leave of absence, which results in fewer hours worked per year, less experience and less time to build networks. As a result, their social networks are less developed (Terjesen, 2005 ).

In the current environment, these networks become a factor that can drive internal promotion in women’s managerial careers. Hypothesis 4 is proposed.

H4. There is a positive relationship between the “social and professional network” factor and the “internal promotion” alternative .

Alternative external promotion: antecedent/conditioning factors

Men and women have different leadership styles (Adams and Funk, 2012 ; Vanderbroeck, 2010 ). The male leadership style is based on traits related to productivity, autonomy, independence and competition (Doherty and Eagly, 1989 ). For the male gender, which tends not to get carried away by emotions, the objective is results and focuses on doing, based on values such as hierarchy, individualism, competitiveness, conformism, domination and control (Barberá et al., 2003 ; Cuadrado and Morales, 2007 ).

On the other hand, women’s leadership style is based more on tasks (Vanderbroeck, 2010 ) and relationships (Eagly, 1987 ). Women are characterized by being more expressive and motivational in their leadership style, giving more empowerment to their employees (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ; Rincón et al., 2017 ). They are usually attributed to emotional characteristics and tend to favour the relationship.

Leadership is a prominent factor in explaining the professional career of women managers, both positively and negatively. Some authors recognize the positive relationship between transformational leadership style, company management and the need for ‘soft’ skills (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ; Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ). The transformational style, typically feminine, is superior and offers better results in terms of efficiency, performance and satisfaction of the members of the group (Rincón et al., 2017 ). Others argue that since the qualities and characteristics required in managerial positions are typically masculine, women are forced to adopt the masculine leadership style in order to gain access to managerial positions and to receive consideration similar to that of men (Cuadrado and Morales, 2007 ; Nyberg et al., 2015 ).

However, more and more authors are pointing to the feminine style as a necessary leadership style for the future of business (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ; Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ). Society is changing. Values such as diversity, the importance of women, the need for greater empowerment of employees, the suppression of authoritarianism in the company are being reinforced. These changes favour the female leadership factor, which has ‘soft skills’ such as emotional intelligence, intuition and empowerment (Barberá et al., 2003 ). Hypothesis 5 is proposed.

H5. There is a positive relationship between the “leadership” factor and the “external promotion” alternative .

External promotion is slower for women than for men (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ). Although objective selection measures are introduced, they often fail to eliminate gender discrimination. Gender stereotypes emerge as a central factor in the analysis of the glass ceiling (Van’t Foort-Diepeveen et al., 2021 ; Barberá et al., 2003 ). Simply by being male or female, certain roles are assigned (Sarrió et al., 2002 ; Schein, 2001 ).

Gender stereotypes influence the external promotion of women managers because they may limit people’s perceptions of women’s abilities and competencies to lead in senior management positions. Gender biases and beliefs can also limit women’s willingness to take on positions of responsibility, making it difficult for them to be promoted externally (Sarrió et al., 2002 ). Hypothesis 6 is proposed.

H6. There is a negative relationship between the “gender stereotype” factor and the “external promotion” alternative .

Alternative entrepreneurship: antecedent/conditioning factors

Family responsibilities include non-formal work such as domestic work, family work and caring for the elderly and dependent children. For purely natural reasons, family responsibilities fall mainly on women (O´Driscoll, 1996 ), which means that they often have to make great sacrifices to give up managerial positions in favour of the family (Anca and Aragón, 2007 ; Zabludovsky, 2007 ). Female managers’ careers are regularly interrupted by maternity leave, illness of children, leave for children and dependants, and even reductions in working hours. This leads to less presence of women in the company, which affects their image at the company level.

In this context, an alternative for the development of a managerial career is entrepreneurship, which allows women to run their own businesses and organize themselves, taking into account their family responsibilities. This leads to Hypothesis 7:

H7. There is a positive relationship between the “family responsibility” factor and the “entrepreneurship” alternative .

Despite the progress made in society in terms of gender equality and conciliation measures, these are not enough and there are still many difficulties for women in the workplace (Fiksenbaum et al., 2010 ; Fernández-Crehuet et al., 2016 ). The development of public policies and work–life balance is essential (Marzec and Szczudlińska-Kanoś, 2023 ). Maternity leave or the possibility of taking leave or reducing working hours is not enough. There is a need for measures that do not harm women in terms of time and form, such as teleworking and flexible working hours (Fernández-Crehuet et al., 2016 ). Government initiatives in the form of legislation are needed to promote women’s access to managerial positions, as social change is evident and policies need to adapt to it (Kilday et al., 2009 ; Coffman et al., 2010 ).

Many of these policies and actions are related to entrepreneurship (Alameda Castillo, 2017 ). And women opt for entrepreneurship in search of a better work–life balance (Welter et al., 2017 ). Hypothesis 8 is proposed.

H8. There is a positive relationship between the “public policies and work-life balance” factor and the “entrepreneurship” alternative .

External support is the independent support of the woman’s direct relationships in the firm. It is the general support that society can provide, usually through associations, groups and pressure groups (Palermo, 2004 ).

These associations or groups set up for women’s development can exert greater pressure on the essential terms of negotiations with governments on legislation, or they can jointly propose alternatives or new measures in the economic sphere, all of which exert greater pressure (Kerr and Sweetman, 2003 ). The various social initiatives thus promote women’s access to managerial positions, often through entrepreneurship (Kilday et al., 2009 ; Coffman et al., 2010 ). It is true that society is increasingly promoting female entrepreneurship. It is therefore the external–social support factor. Based on this, the relationship between the external–social support factor and the entrepreneurship alternative is considered positive. Hypothesis 9 is proposed.

H9. There is a positive relationship between the “external support” factor and the “entrepreneurship” alternative .

Internal personality factors are often linked to cultural, religious, socio-economic and political beliefs (Cubillo and Brown, 2003 ). For women in the workplace, low self-esteem, fear of failure and lack of competitiveness are often identified as internal limiting factors (Oplatka, 2006 ) that hold back the careers of women managers (Anca and Aragón, 2007 ; Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ). On the other hand, the will to serve and the sense of duty are linked to an entrepreneurial orientation.

Entrepreneurship provides personal satisfaction for women (Burt and Raider, 2002 ). The literature suggests that women receive a greater "return" for their qualities and skills in self-employment than in a salaried position (Devine, 1994 ). Several studies report how senior women leave multinational companies to start their own businesses (Terjesen, 2005 ). Hypothesis 10 is posed.

H10. There is a positive relationship between the “internal personality” factor and the “entrepreneurship” alternative .

Once hypotheses are defined, Fig. 2 shows the complete graphical representation of the basic analysis model including hypotheses.

Analysis model.

This study addresses the question of how women choose career alternatives considering a set of criteria reflecting social, personal, and organizational issues. The study considers the scenarios that women executives commonly face when seeking to advance their careers. The aim is to obtain rankings of preferred alternatives for career development in each scenario. Each of these scenarios implies giving different importance (different values to the weights reflecting the importance) to each of the 10 factors of women’s career development considered. It is very important to remark that these factors are usually in conflict. So, we want to produce a recommendation for women for career alternatives to choose from considering conflictual criteria for each one of the five scenarios considered. We will face five multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) problems, one for each scenario. The factors will be considered the criteria and the career alternatives will be the alternatives. Weights for the criteria will be different for each scenario.

There are numerous multi-criteria decision aid methods. Therefore, we will have to justify the rationale for the chosen method. The factors of women’s career development are considered an attempt to reflect the social, personal, and organizational viewpoints that are relevant in deciding on one career alternative or another. The way in which these factors have been chosen allows us to affirm that they constitute a coherent family of criteria in the sense defined by Roy and Bouyssou ( 1993 ). Another important consideration is the fact that it seemed relevant to us that the criteria should not compensate for each other (a low performance on a personal criterion should not be compensated by a good performance on a social criterion, for example). We have chosen ELECTRE methods (Roy and Bouyssou, 1993 ) as a family of methods suitable for our study. Different are the problematics dealt with by these methods. As our problem deals with the ranking problematic, we will choose the ELECTRE III method (Figueira et al., 2016 ; Greco et al., 2016 ). To learn more about multi-criteria decision methods for the ranking problematic see Taherdoost and Madanchian ( 2023 ).

Let us see precisely why we have chosen the ELECTRE III method. Recall that our objective is to obtain a ranking of the alternatives. Well, to choose which method, among the possible ones that generate a ranking as a final recommendation, we will consider the scheme proposed by Roy and Slowinski ( 2013 ). According to them the first question to ask when choosing a multi-criteria decision-aiding method is the following: “Taking into account the context of the decision process, what type(s) of results is the method expected to produce, so as to allow the elaboration of relevant answers to the questions posed by the decision maker?”. The answer given by the authors is that there are four possible types:

“ Type 1: A numerical value (utility, score) is assigned to each potential action .”

“ Type 2: The set of actions is ranked (without associating a numerical value to each of them) as a complete or partial weak order .”

“ Type 3: A subset of actions, as small as possible, is selected in view of a final choice of one or, at first, few actions .”

“Type 4: Each action is assigned to one or several categories, given that the set of categories has been defined a priori.”

In our case, the expected outcome is clearly type 2. We do not consider it necessary, or even interesting, to assign a numerical value to each alternative. There is one restriction to bear in mind, and that is that this type of outcome can only be considered if the set A of possible actions is known a priori, which is our case.

The methods relevant here, and for which software is readily available, are ELECTRE III, IV (Figueira et al., 2016 ), PROMETHEE I and II (Brans and Mareschal, 2005 ), all robust ordinal regression methods (Greco et al., 2010 ) producing necessary and possible rankings (like UTA GMS , GRIP, extreme ranking analysis, RUTA, ELECTRE GKMS and PROMETHEE GKMS ).

As mentioned above, we do not want the chosen method to allow for trade-offs or compensation between criteria. The methods that rely on aggregating criteria into a synthetic criterion and assigning a numerical value (utility, score) are compensatory methods. Methods based on outranking relationships allow very limited compensation under certain conditions. In view of this, our choice is between the ELECTRE or PROMETHEE methods, which produce a ranking of alternatives as a final recommendation.

In addition, it is desirable to avoid complex information for the decision-maker. PROMETHEE requires the definition of a preference function associated with each criterion, while ELECTRE requires a set of parameters to model the preference information. In our case, the introduction of parameters to model preference information was much better understood by the decision-maker than the definition of preference functions. Therefore, we decided to use the ELECTRE method. As the introduction of weights was also essential, ELECTRE III was chosen.

The construction of the MCDA model was based on a constructivist approach. Both the construction of the coherent family of criteria and the set of alternatives have been carried out based on the existing literature. No cause-and-effect relationships are assumed between the components of the model. The aim is to obtain a ranking of preferences among the career alternatives considering the family of criteria and the importance (weights) that these criteria have in each of the five scenarios considered.

The data were gathered from a survey (see Supplementary Material). Table 1 presents the technical details.

Table 2 summarizes the key characteristics of the women included in the survey.

Respondents were asked to rate (considering 1 not at all, 2 a little, 3 a little, 4 a lot and 5 completely) three possible career choices, plus a fourth (“other”) related to access to public employment or a family business, on the basis of the factors described in the literature. The alternatives for career development were internal promotion (IP), external promotion (EP), entrepreneurship (EN) and other (OT). The factors under consideration were internal factors (IF), family responsibility (FR), training and development (T&D), leadership (LD), organizational culture (OC), organizational support (OS), social and professional network (NT), external social support (ES), gender stereotypes (GS), and public policy and work–life balance (PP).

The survey was supported by data from in-depth interviews with 25 women managers who had already responded to the questionnaire. The aim of the interviews was to obtain qualitative data to enrich and add detail to the study. The interviews also helped explain and support some of the study’s findings.

These 25 women had different profiles in terms of age, children, training, type of company, position, and the way they reached their position. The aim was to interview women with different characteristics to explain the range of contexts that women experience. Of these 25 women, 10 were aged 30–40 years, 10 were aged 40–50 years and five were older than 50 years. Regarding children, 18 had children (12 had more than one child) and seven had no children. All except four of them had a higher education degree. Those four had completed their secondary education. All of the interviewed women worked in service sector companies in first-line positions (11 of the 25 women), middle-line positions (five women) and top management positions (nine women). Finally, 14 had been promoted internally, five had been promoted externally, and six had reached their position through entrepreneurship.

Method: ELECTRE III

ELECTRE methods are a family of multicriteria decision-aiding methods (MCDA) based on outranking relations. ELECTRE III is focused on ranking problems Alternatives (possible career choices in this study) are ordered from best to worst through pairwise comparison (Figueira et al., 2016 ; Greco et al., 2016 ).

The basic elements of any multicriteria decision-aiding problem are a set of alternatives, a coherent family of criteria, a performance matrix of criteria for each of the alternatives and a set of criteria weights. ELECTRE methods are based on the use of binary relationships called outranking relations. An alternative a outranking an alternative b (denoted by a S b ) expresses the fact that there are sufficient arguments to decide that a is at least as good as b and there are no essential reasons to refute this (Roy and Bouyssou, 1993 ). An outranking degree S ( a , b ) between a and b is computed to measure or evaluate this assertion. These outranking relations are based on three basic binary relations: preference, indifference and incomparability.

ELECTRE methods are based on the principles of concordance and discordance. The concordance principle states that if a is demonstrably as good as or better than b according to a sufficiently large weight of criteria, then it is considered to be evidence in favour of a outranking b . The discordance principle states that if b is very strongly preferred to a on one or more criteria, then it is considered to be evidence against a outranking b .

ELECTRE III is divided into two phases. First, the outranking relationship between the alternatives is constructed and then exploited. To construct the outranking relationship, use other parameters to model the decision maker’s preferences, in addition to the criteria weights. These parameters are the preference, indifference and veto thresholds. Criteria can be increasing or decreasing.

The indifference threshold indicates the largest difference between the alternatives’ performance on a given criterion that makes the two levels of performance indifferent to the decision maker. The preference threshold indicates the largest difference between the performance of the two alternatives such that one is preferred over the other for the criterion under consideration. The veto threshold for a criterion is the difference between the performance of the two alternatives above which it seems reasonable to reject any credibility about the outranking of one alternative by the other alternative, even when all other criteria are in line with this outranking.

ELECTRE III constructs a partial concordance index for each criterion, an overall concordance index and a discordance index. Once these indices have been defined, the credibility index can be defined. The partial concordance index measures the strength of support, given the available evidence, that a is at least as good as b considering one specific criterion. The overall concordance index measures the strength of support, given the available evidence, that a is at least as good as b considering all criteria. For each criterion, the discordance index measures the strength of the evidence against the hypothesis that a is at least as good as b . The credibility index measures the strength of the claim that “alternative a is at least as good as alternative b ”. If no veto thresholds are specified, the credibility index is equal to the overall concordance index for all pairs of alternatives.

The second phase of ELECTRE III consists of the exploitation of the pairwise outranking indices through bottom-up and top-down distillations. The distillation procedures each calculate a complete pre-order. Each pre-order considers the behaviour of each alternative when outranking or being outranked by the other alternatives. These two procedures can lead to two different complete pre-orders. The final partial pre-order is the intersection of these two complete pre-orders (Figueira et al., 2016 ).

The aim is to obtain a ranking of career alternatives for women according to the 10 factors (personal, organizational and social factors, see Fig. 2 ) considered in this study. Different scenarios are presented, and rankings are proposed for each scenario.

For the multicriteria decision problem, the median of the ratings that respondents gave to each alternative under each criterion was taken. These ratings are shown in Table 3 , which is referred to as the table of performance of the alternatives in the multicriteria decision problem.

The questionnaire also asked women about the importance they attached to each of the 10 factors considered in the study. The weights of the criteria were calculated from the results of the survey. To assign weights to the criteria, five scenarios were considered. These five scenarios generated five multicriteria decision problems and consequently five rankings of the professional alternatives. The five scenarios are now described.

Scenario 1: Professional development

In this scenario, women fight for their professional development at all costs. For these women, their professional goal is to improve, reach the highest possible position based on their potential and take on ever greater responsibility. These women generally make considerable sacrifices in their personal life.

Scenario 2: Job stability

In this scenario, women pursue job stability. There comes a time when they do not so much want a promotion as to be stable in their current management position. They neither look for change nor show ambition.

Scenario 3: Family

In this scenario, women prioritize family. These women managers see their family as the most important thing and believe that it comes before everything else. They are not willing to miss out on work-life balance measures. If they have to give up their professional career, they will do so.

Scenario 4: Family and professional development

In this scenario, women pursue their professional development without giving up their family life. For these women, although family comes before everything else, they never give up their professional development, but instead try to balance this area of their life with their family.

Scenario 5: Equality

In this scenario, women have a professional goal to demonstrate the equality of genders. In other words, they wish to demonstrate women’s ability to hold managerial positions.

First, to weight the criteria (factors), the weights must be established according to the decision maker’s situation and priorities and therefore for each scenario. From the questionnaires, a different weighting was obtained for each factor taking into account the five scenarios. Each respondent indicated the particular scenario she was facing. Of the 236 women who responded, 92 declared themselves to be in Scenario 1 (professional development), 21 in Scenario 2 (job stability), 26 in Scenario 3 (family), 62 in Scenario 4 (family and professional development) and 35 in Scenario 5 (equality). From 1 to 10, respondents rated the importance of the factors in their specific scenario. The 25 interviews were then used to find a generic explanation for these weightings. In the statistical analysis, the weighted average of the importance of factors for each scenario was used to give the weights.

The software Diviz was used to compute the rankings in the ELECTRE III method (Meyer and Bigaret, 2012 ; Ishizaka and Nemery, 2013 ). For each of the five scenarios, Table 4 shows the weights of the criteria (factors) and the results in the form of a ranking of the alternatives proposed. It was considered unnecessary to introduce thresholds or vetoes due to the scales used in the performance table.

Each factor has a high degree of importance in at least one of the scenarios. Table 5 summarizes the scenarios, factors and results provided by ELECTRE III, enabling testing of the hypotheses corresponding to the analysis model.

Of the proposed hypotheses, H1–H4 cannot be confirmed, but the rest are supported. For each hypothesis, the factor is examined, and the scenario for which the factor has the highest weight is chosen. This information is then compared with the results from the ELECTRE III method. For example, H1 proposes a positive link between the factor “training and development” and the alternative “internal promotion”. Given that the factor under examination is training and development, the scenario where this factor has the highest weighting is chosen. In this case, the chosen scenario is Scenario 1 (where women prioritize their professional development over all else). The results of the ELECTRE III method suggest that for this factor, the preferred alternative is “entrepreneurship”, with “other” in second place. In third place is “external promotion” and finally “internal promotion”. Therefore, the first hypothesis is not confirmed. This procedure is repeated for all hypotheses, giving the results shown in the right-hand column of Table 5 .

This section discusses the results and links them back to the literature. The intention is for the results to support the general idea that for women, career advancement into senior positions is difficult. “The ubiquitous work/family narrative, and the associated ‘choices’ a woman may make about her work life, provide only a small explanation for why women’s career progression tends to be slower than that of men” (Jogulu and Franken, 2022 , p. 3).

In relation to the first hypothesis, the results are not consistent with the literature. According to Ng et al. ( 2005 ) and Nyberg et al. ( 2015 ), internal promotion is directly linked to women’s education and training. In the present study, women reported that for internal promotion, the most influential factor is training and development (Scenario 1). However, as shown by the weightings of the factors when the priority is professional development (Scenario 1), the preferred alternative is entrepreneurship (results from ELECTRE III). Training and development can be a motivating factor, as women are increasingly trained in higher education, but it can also be a limiting factor, as it confines them to certain areas where there is a greater female presence, distancing them from others, especially technical areas (Oakley, 2000 ). Although nowadays, it is believed that women are just as well or better trained than men, especially in certain areas (Clancy, 2007 ) and that this factor is a motivator for their professional careers. But when women prioritize their professional development, they have to seek promotion on their own. So, for women with strong training, the preferred development alternative is entrepreneurship, because it gives them greater personal satisfaction (Brush, 2006 ) and autonomy.

In relation to the second hypothesis, the results also contradict the literature, which describes a positive relationship between the factor “organizational culture” and internal promotion. For a woman executive to choose internal promotion within her firm, she should fit into its culture. Experts refer to this phenomenon as organizational fit (Lyness and Thompson, 2000 ). The results contradict this argument. One explanation might be that the dominant organizational culture within companies is still highly traditional, in the sense that it still places women in the role of mothers (Lee et al., 2006 ) and identifies women in positions destined to serve and care for people. In many cases, women are confined to positions that limit their development. (Sullivan and Mainiero, 2008 ; Godoy and Mladinic, 2009 ).

Another possible argument is that organizational culture is detrimental to women’s internal promotion because of the prevalence of presenteeism (Barberá et al., 2003 ). Presenteeism is prevalent in today’s organizations (Van’t Foort-Diepeveen et al., 2021 ). Professional work, especially managerial work, requires great dedication. Thus, a greater presence in the company is linked to greater participation in decision-making, which is a necessary factor for promotion (Nyberg et al., 2015 ). Men are more visible, dedicate more time and effort to the company and are therefore considered more for promotions (Zabludovsky, 2007 ). Therefore, if the woman spends less time in the company due to the factor of family responsibilities, she will be less visible for internal promotion.

In many organizations, the dominant culture is patriarchal and generates asymmetries between men and women (Barberá et al., 2003 ; Dzubinski et al., 2019 ). Most authors support the thesis that organizational culture is dominated by androcentric values that exclude the feminine (Pallares and Martínez, 1993 ; Bilimoria and Piderit, 2007 ). In this culture, most managerial positions are held by men. Therefore, there is an influence on the gender of the people who make decisions about internal promotion in organizations (Cuadrado and Morales, 2007 ). However, organizations are not aware that organizational culture acts as an obstacle for women and perpetuates unequal relations between men and women, so they do not see the need for institutional action to alleviate this situation (Zabludovsky, 2007 ).

When faced with a highly traditional organizational culture, women prefer the alternative “other”, which covers family businesses and public employment. This alternative lets them escape from a culture where femininity can exclude them from being promoted.

For the third hypothesis, the results contradict the literature, which describes a positive relationship between organizational support and internal promotion. Through processes of mentoring, coaching, training and support from superiors, organizational support provides women with feedback on their personality and good work, giving them greater belief and confidence (Bilimoria and Piderit, 2007 ; De Vos and De Hauw, 2010 ). The explanation for this finding may be the lack of transparency and information in promotion processes (Oakley, 2000 ). The empirical analysis does not confirm the relationship between internal promotion and organizational support to the extent that internal promotion is not the preferred alternative. Instead, women with organizational support prefer the alternative “other”. Accordingly, when women feel supported and attain a certain level of belief and confidence, they prefer to develop their careers on their own, without having to rely on promotion processes.

The positive association between the factor “social and professional network” and the alternative “internal promotion” is not confirmed. This finding contradicts the literature, which cites social and professional networks as a factor that enables faster promotion by providing access to information, better resources and more valuable contacts (Burke, 2009 ). This finding could be explained by the fact that once a woman establishes a network of contacts, it gives her greater mobility to follow other alternatives to support her professional development, such as entrepreneurship or external promotion. Moreover, networks have always been the domain of men (Simpson, 2000 ). Men devote more time to building a broad network of contacts because their careers are not usually interrupted by maternity or leaves of absence (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ). Thus, when women can develop a strong contact network, the preferred alternative is entrepreneurship instead of internal promotion.

Not all the hypotheses raised in relation to internal promotion were tested. It seems that at a theoretical level, the literature suggests positive relationships between factors such as organizational culture, training and development, organizational support, social and professional networks; but in the study, women do not opt for internal promotion in the presence of these factors but choose other career development alternatives such as entrepreneurship or others. In general, women feel that they have fewer opportunities for career development than men (Ohlott et al., 1994 ), and even that they are given less consideration (Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ). This is explained by the organizational culture, where masculine values persist, and by stereotyped gender beliefs so that women with children are seen as women who will not work full time, who will have to ask for more days for their own affairs, or even leave. And women without children, far from being more valued or considered, are seen as potential mothers. As a result, women, whether they have children or not, receive less attention in terms of training, networking and organizational support, resulting in fewer opportunities for internal promotion. (Cuadrado and Morales, 2007 ).

ELECTRE III confirms the positive relationship between the factor “leadership” and the alternative “external promotion”. This finding is consistent with the literature. Although some authors have reported that a feminine leadership style hinders progress in professional development (Adams and Funk, 2012 ; Eagly and Karau, 2002 ), the majority have noted the need for this type of leadership in order to bring new values to the business world (Eadly and Carli, 2007 ; Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008 ). Nowadays, selection processes are designed to look for capabilities and styles based on soft skills, which women tend to have. Thus, feminine leadership is a strength of new organizations (Terjesen et al., 2009 ), surpassing the "think manager-think male" coined by Schein in 1973. Consequently, the empirical analysis confirms that the preferred alternative for women is external promotion. Once they see that the market values their leadership and qualities, women choose to change companies.

The results confirm a negative relationship between the factor “gender stereotypes” and the alternative “external promotion”. This finding is consistent with the literature. Women find it harder to pass standard selection processes, despite efforts to introduce objective measures that eliminate gender discrimination. Gender stereotypes exert a negative influence on external promotion. This factor is the main argument in relation to the glass ceiling (Agars, 2004 ). The characteristics of women—their role as women and mothers, which ties them to domestic and family duties—keep them from developing professionally (Legault and Chasserio, 2003 ). Although there have been significant changes in the role of women in society in recent decades, gender stereotypes still persist (Baron and Byrne, 2005 ) and women are aware that gender stereotypes can create a barrier to external promotion.

One of the most serious consequences of this factor, in addition to preventing normal access to managerial positions, is employment discrimination against women in all its aspects; from the point of view of pay and from the point of view of sexual and psychological harassment (Alcover, 2004 ; Berryman-Fink, 2001 ; Leymann, 1990 ). Studies show that men are favoured over women and that women actually experience more precarious pay conditions, more atypical working hours and a lack of pay equity compared to men (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ; Oakley, 2000 ).

The positive link between the factor “family responsibility” and the alternative “entrepreneurship” is confirmed, in line with the literature. Family responsibility refers to informal work, such as domestic duties, housework, caring for the family, and looking after children and dependent adults. These tasks predominantly fall to women, who are socially obliged to play a double reproductive and productive role (O´Driscoll, 1996 ). So, Many authors see family responsibilities as the main obstacle women face in developing their managerial careers (Cuadrado and Morales, 2007 ; Sarrió et al., 2002 ; Eagly and Carli, 2007 ). Even a growing number of women are postponing or abandoning their plans for maternity to focus on their professional development (Zabludovsky, 2007 ). Entrepreneurship offers a solution to this problem, and it is the alternative that best favours women’s professional development. For women, the priority is to find a balance (Eagly and Carli, 2007 ). This means that in order to fulfil their family responsibilities and at the same time focus on their professional development, they start their own business, run the family business or study to enter the public sector in order to balance work with other aspects of their lives.

The positive relationship between the factor “public policies and work–life balance” and the alternative “entrepreneurship” is confirmed. Despite a growing number of public policies aimed at ensuring a balance between professional and family life, women prefer to start their own businesses in a way that is compatible with their family life (Brusch, 2006 ). The literature points to the need for greater development of public policies and conciliation (Selva et al., 2011 ). There are many proposals at international and national levels and few actions that are implemented (Fernández-Crehuet et al., 2016 ). In the absence of public policies and conciliation that favour new measures to reconcile personal/family life with work, women prefer to start their own businesses in an organized way according to their family life. Therefore, the result of directly linking this factor to entrepreneurship is in accordance with the literature.

The positive link between the factor “external support” and the alternative “entrepreneurship” is confirmed. This finding is consistent with the literature, which highlights the role of legal, government and social support in ensuring a high presence of women entrepreneurship (Kilday et al., 2009 ; Coffman et al., 2010 ). In addition, the existence of associations that support women in the adventure of entrepreneurship, as well as specific university and financial programmes, favour entrepreneurship (Palermo, 2004 ).

The positive link between the factor “personality” and the alternative “entrepreneurship” is confirmed, in line with the literature, to the extent that it links self-esteem and confidence to entrepreneurship (Nikolova, 2019 ; Devine, 1994 ; De Vos and De Hauw, 2010 ). According to the literature, women leave multinationals to start their own businesses given the difficulties they face in professional development within the world of paid employment (Terjesen, 2005 ).

However, the results for the relationship between personality and “external promotion” or “other” (as equivalence is given), are not consistent with the literature. There is a female evasion in work situations, giving priority to the personal life over the professional life, because of the fear of being successful in the professional field and the confrontation that this might entail. This is the example of those women who, with a high academic background and the possibility of opting for top management positions, opt for intermediate positions, refusing promotion or external promotion (Díez-Gutiérrez et al., 2009 ).

ELECTRE III provides a solution in situations where there are equal weightings or when all factors are considered equally important. Accordingly, the preferred alternatives for women executives are, first, external promotion, entrepreneurship and “other” (with equivalent scores), followed by internal promotion. This result is surprising because the majority of women who responded to the questionnaire indicated that they had reached their current position through internal promotion (60%). However, ELECTRE III identified the preferred alternatives by women in each scenario while considering the importance that the women assigned to the factors. In this study, it is important to differentiate between reality and women’s views on the importance of each factor in each scenario. That is, one thing is what women actually experience and another is how they would like to live or what alternative they would prefer in each scenario.

The solutions provided by ELECTRE III do not disregard any alternative. Instead, they show that some alternatives are preferable to others. In this case, internal promotion is the least preferred alternative by women in all scenarios, including the solution where all factors are considered to be equally important. In the current context, internal promotion is not the easiest option for women. If women wish to continue to advance, they have to do so in another company or by starting their own firm.

Conclusions

This study examines a topic of considerable academic, social and economic interest. Specifically, it explores the factors of career development of women executives in relation to the alternatives available to them for that development. The study is based on multicriteria decision techniques. It covers a gap in the literature, where this topic is addressed from a theoretical perspective.

The analysis of factors and development alternatives shows that women do not reach executive positions in the same way as men. When they manage to break the glass ceiling, they are under pressure and at a disadvantage with respect to their male peers. One in four women has postponed maternity, and one in five acknowledges having decided not to have children due to difficulties in professional development at the executive level (Eurofound, 2016 ). For a series of reasons, women executives feel forced to make greater personal and professional efforts than men.

The results of the present study provide some highly interesting conclusions. Crucially, each woman finds herself in a unique personal situation, which differs from that of others. Therefore, the method applied in this study enabled the analysis of a series of scenarios. In each scenario, the factors were weighted differently, and depending on the scenario, the relationships with the alternatives also varied. The results show how each factor affects the alternatives differently in each scenario.

In Scenario 1, professional development is the priority for women executives. The factors “training and development” and “social and professional network” exert a direct influence on the alternative “entrepreneurship”. In this scenario, when women have extensive training and experience and a broad contact network, their preferred alternative for career development is entrepreneurship.

In Scenario 2, stability at work is the priority for women executives. The factors “organizational culture” and “organizational support” exert a direct influence on the alternatives “other” and entrepreneurship. Women executives that seek professional stability choose to start a business or take exams to enter public employment.

In Scenario 3, women seek a balance between their family and their professional development, although they are prepared to forgo this development in favour of their family. The factor “family responsibility” is the key factor in choosing the alternative “other” or entrepreneurship.

In Scenario 4, women seek a balance between family and work without forgoing their careers. The factors that determine the choice of entrepreneurship, external promotion and “other” (to the same degree) are “public policies and work–life balance”, social and external support, and personality.

Finally, in Scenario 5, women seek to demonstrate that both genders are equal. In this case, the factors that determine their preference for external promotion, entrepreneurship and “other” as alternatives for career development are “leadership”, “gender stereotypes” and “public policies and work–life balance”.

Notably, no factor determined that internal promotion would be the preferred career development alternative for women executives. This finding may be related to organizational culture, organizational support and networking. In practice, women view organizational culture as a barrier to their professional development. Presenteeism is still a dominant force for executives seeking promotion, and for biological reasons, men are more visible in this sense. Regarding organizational support, only 36.2% of the surveyed women reported having the support of a mentor. The figure of the mentor provides support for promotions within the firm. Likewise, although contact networks are important for internal promotion, the questionnaire responses suggest that only a minority of women use contact networks often or very often.

The analysis reveals women’s need to take control of their own professional development. That is, for most factors, the preferred alternative for career development is entrepreneurship. This finding means that women have a major need to develop on their own terms, with their own means, without having to rely on a company that may hold them back. Thanks to their qualities, women are perfectly capable of running their own businesses and possess the key aptitudes needed for success.

In conclusion, this study shows that women find themselves in unique situations and have different priorities. They feel most satisfied and have a stronger predisposition to start a business. Internal promotion is not their preferred alternative in any scenario, regardless of the importance assigned to certain factors. It seems that there is still much to be done in organizations to place women on an equal footing with men for internal promotions (Sommer, 2022 ).

This study contributes to the literature on the topic of gender in management in terms of the theoretical foundations of the glass ceiling and empirical validation of the theory. Thus, as a theoretical contribution, it allows us to respond to specific links between factors and career development alternatives of women executives, filling this gap in the literature on the glass ceiling. Through this research, we will try to better understand this phenomenon by considering both factors and alternatives. The model proposed by Elacqua et al. ( 2009 ) is enriched. Another contribution is related to the application of multicriteria decision techniques, not used in this type of analysis. It also has managerial implications that give companies an empirical basis regarding the focus on women’s career development.

The implications of this research for practice and society are significant. First, by providing knowledge about the glass ceiling that negatively impacts women’s individual career development, opportunities for promotion and recognition of their skills, talents and contributions can be promoted.

Secondly, knowledge of the positive relationship between factors and alternatives in the development of a woman manager’s career will help to avoid perpetuating gender inequality, increase diversity in leadership roles and promote the potential for innovation and progress. By including women in the pool of candidates for top positions, organizations do not miss out on the diverse perspectives, experiences and insights that can drive innovation and creativity. This responds to Bullough et al., ( 2017 ) call for new research on the barriers and biases faced by women in leadership: it could aim to provide specific, evidence-based recommendations on how organizations and individuals can work to develop greater gender diversity in leadership and senior positions around the world.

Third, to break the glass ceiling, organizations need to take proactive steps to promote gender equality and diversity in their recruitment, retention and promotion practices. This can include implementing policies and initiatives to support work–life balance, providing training and mentoring opportunities, and addressing unconscious biases and stereotypes that may limit women’s advancement. At a societal level, tackling the glass ceiling requires a broader commitment to gender equality, including addressing issues such as unequal pay, lack of access to education and training, and gender discrimination and harassment. This requires a concerted effort by policymakers, business leaders and individuals to promote greater gender equality and create a more inclusive society where all individuals have equal opportunities to succeed.

Given the importance of the above implications, future lines of research in the area of the glass ceiling aim to develop a deeper understanding of the factors that contribute to gender inequality in the workplace and to identify strategies that can help promote greater gender equality and diversity. Another interesting line of future research is to analyse spatial differences in terms of the relationship between determining factors and alternatives for women’s career development; taking into account specific factors may lead to interesting conclusions in those countries where women’s career development is most favoured. Indeed, the inclusion of outcome variables (such as job satisfaction, well-being, organizational performance and innovation) will broaden the scope towards the consequences of the glass ceiling; research in this area seeks to understand the impact of the glass ceiling on individuals, organizations and society as a whole.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available as a form of supplementary file and/or from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Van ’t Foort-Diepeveen RA, Argyrou A, Lambooy T (2021) Holistic and integrative review into the barriers to women’s advancement to the corporate top in Europe. Gend Manag 36(4):464–481. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2020-0058

Article   Google Scholar  

Ackah C, Heaton N(2003) Human resource management careers: different paths for men and women Career Dev Int 8:134–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430310471041

Adams RB, Funk P (2012) Beyond the glass ceiling: does gender matter? Manag Sci 58:219–235. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41406385

Agars MD (2004) Reconsidering the impact of gender stereotypes on the advancement of women in organizations. Psychol Women 28:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00127.x

Akpinar-Sposito C (2013) Career barriers for women executives and the glass ceiling syndrome: the case study comparison between French and Turkish women executives. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 75:488–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.053

Alameda Castillo MT (2017) Entrepreneurship in women: difficulties in terms of work-family reconciliation and self-employment (advances and setbacks). In: Collective bargaining as a vehicle for the effective implementation of equality measures. Universidad Carlos III, Madrid, Getafe, pp. 142–161

Alcover CM (2004) Gestión del bienestar laboral. In: Alcover CM et al (eds) Introducción a la Psicología del Trabajo. McGraw Hill, Madrid, pp. 543–490

Anca C, Aragón S (2007) La mujer directiva en España: catalizadores e inhibidores en las decisiones de trayectoria profesional. Acad Rev Latinoam Admin 38:45–63

Google Scholar  

Babic A, Hansez I (2021) The glass ceiling for women managers: antecedents and consequences for work–family interface and well-being at work. Front Psychol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.618250

Barberá E, López AR, Catalá MTS (2003) Mujeres directivas, espacio de poder y relaciones de género. Anu Psicol/UB J Psychol 267–278 https://raco.cat/index.php/AnuarioPsicologia/article/view/61740

Barnett RC (2004) Preface: women and work: where are we, where did we come from, and where are we going. J Soc Issues 60:667–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00378.x

Baron RA, Byrne D (2005) Prejuicio: causas, efectos y formas de contrarrestarlo. In: Baron and Byrne (eds) Psicología social. Pearson Prentice-Hall, Pearson Educación, Madrid, pp. 215–261

Bendl R, Schmidt A (2010) From ‘glass ceilings’ to ‘firewalls’- different metaphors for describing discrimination: from ‘glass ceilings’ to ‘firewalls’. Gend Work Organ 17:612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00520.x

Berryman-Fink C (2001) Women’s responses to sexual harassment at work: organizational policy versus employee practice. Employ Relat Today 27:57–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.3910270407

Bilimoria D, Piderit SK (2007) Handbook on women in business and management. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Book   Google Scholar  

Brans JP, Mareschal B (2005) Promethee methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, pp. 163–185

Bruni A, Gherardi S, Poggio B (2004) Entrepreneur mentality, gender and the study of women entrepreneurs. J Organ Change Manag 17:256–268

Brush CG (2006) Women entrepreneurs: a research overview. In: Casson M (ed) The Oxford handbook of entrepreneurship. Oxford Publishing, London, pp. 661–628

Bullough A, Moore F, Kalafatoglu T (2017) Research on women in international business and management: then, now, and next. Cross Cult Strateg Manag 24:211–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-02-2017-0011

Burke RJ (2009) Cultural values and women’s work and career experiences. In: Bhagat, Steers (eds) Handbook of culture, organizations and work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 442–461

Burt RS, Raider HJ (2002) Creating careers: Women’s paths to entrepreneurship. Unpublished manuscript. University of Chicago, Chicago

Clancy S (2007) ¿Por qué no hay más mujeres en la cima de la escala corporativa: debido a estereotipos, a diferencias biológicas o a elecciones personales. Rev Latinoam Adm 38:1–8

Coffman J, Gadiesh O, Miller W (2010) The great disappearing act: gender parity up the corporate ladder. Boston Bain & Company, Boston

Cohen JR, Dalton DW, Holder-Webb LL, Mcmillan JJ (2020) An analysis of glass ceiling perceptions in the accounting profession”. J Bus Ethics 164:17–38

Cotter DA, Hermsen JM, Ovadia S, Vanneman R (2001) The glass ceiling effect. Soc Forces 80:655–681. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0091

Cuadrado I, Morales JF (2007) Algunas claves sobre el techo de cristal en las organizaciones. Rev Psicol Trab las Organ 23:183–202

Cubillo L, Brown M (2003) Women into educational leadership and management: international differences? J Educ Adm 41:278–291

De Vos A, De Hauw S (2010) Linking competency development to career success: exploring the mediating role of employability. Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School Working Paper Series 2010-03. Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School

Devine F (1994) Segregation and supply: preferences and plans among ‘self-made. Work Organ 1:94–109

Dezsö CL, Ross DG (2012) Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strateg Manag J 33:1072–1089. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1955

Díez-Gutiérrez EJ, Terrón-Bañuelos E, Anguita-Martínez R (2009) Percepción de las mujeres sobre el "techo de cristal" en educación. Rev Interuniv Form Profr 23(1):27–40. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=27418821003

Doherty EG, Eagly AH (1989) Sex differences in social behavior: a social-role interpretation. Contemp Sociol 18:343. https://doi.org/10.2307/2073813

Doubell M, Struwig M (2014) Perceptions of factors influencing career success of professional and business women in South Africa. S Afr J Econ Manag Sci 17:531–543

Dzubinski L, Diehl A, Taylor M (2019) Women’s ways of leading: the environmental effect. Gend Manag 34(3):233–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-11-2017-0150

Eagly AH, Karau SJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev 109:573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eagly AH, Carli LL (2007) Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harv Bus Rev 85(62–71):146

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eagly AH (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role interpretation. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781906

Elacqua TC, Beehr TA, Hansen CP, Webster J (2009) Managers’ beliefs about the glass ceiling: interpersonal and organizational factors. Psychol Women 33:285–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/036168430903300304

Eurofound (2016) The gender employment gap: challenges and solutions. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/the-gender-employment-gap-challenges-and-solutions . Accessed 12 Jul 2022

Fagenson EA (1990) At the heart of women in management research: theoretical and methodological approaches and their biases. J Bus Ethics 9:267–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00380326

Fernández-Crehuet JM, Gimenez-Nadal JI, Reyes-Recio LE (2016) The national work–life balance index©: the European case. Soc Indic Res 128:341–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1034-2

Figueira JR, Mousseau V, Roy B (2016) ELECTRE methods, international series in operations research & management science. In: Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis, 2nd edn, ch 0. Springer, pp. 155–185

Fiksenbaum L, Koyuncu M, Burke RJ (2010) Virtues, work experiences and psychological well‐being among managerial women in a Turkish bank. Equal Divers Incl Int J 29:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151011024501

Giscombe K, Mattis MC (2002) Leveling the playing field for women of color in corporate management: is the business case enough? J Bus Ethics 37(1):103–119

Godoy L, Mladinic A (2009) Estereotipos y roles de género en la evaluación laboral y personal de hombres y mujeres en cargos de dirección. Psykhe 18(2):51–64

Greco S, Słowiński R, Figueira JR, Mousseau V (2010) Robust ordinal regression. In: Ehrgott M, Figueira J, Greco S, (eds) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, pp. 241–283

Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. In: Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira J (eds) Operations research and management science, 2nd edn. Springer

Halpern DF (2005) Psychology at the intersection of work and family: recommendations for employers, working families, and policymakers. Am Psychol 60:397–409

Hopkins MM, Bilimoria D (2008) Social and emotional competencies predicting success for male and female executives. J Manag Dev 27:13–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840749

Huang Q, El-Khouri BM, Johansson G, Lindroth S, Sverke M (2007) Women’s career patterns: a study of Swedish women born in the 1950s. J Occup Organ Psychol 80:387–412. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906x119738

ILO (2017) Breaking barriers: unconscious gender bias in the workplace. International Labour Organization, Switzerland. https://www.ilo.org/actemp/publications/WCMS_601276/lang--en/index.htm . Accessed 12 Jul 2022

Ishizaka A, Nemery P (2013) Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey

Jackson JFL, O’Callaghan EM (2009) What do we know about glass ceiling effects? A taxonomy and critical review to inform higher education research. Res High Educ 50:460–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9128-9

Jogulu U, Franken E (2022) The career resilience of senior women managers: A cross‐cultural perspective. Gend Work Organ https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12829

Kaftandzieva T, Nakov L (2021) Glass ceiling factors hindering women’s advancement in management hierarchy. J Econ Manag Trade 16–29. https://doi.org/10.9734/jemt/2021/v27i230327

Kerr J, Sweetman C (2003) Women reinventing globalisation. Oxfam GB, Oxford

Kilday L, Mihailescu A, Nolan C, Schreve F (2009) Women on Boards of Directors: the case study of Norway. Research Paper, St Gallen

Klenke K (2003) Gender influences in decision-making processes in top management teams. Manag Decision 41:1024–1034

Lee YG, Danes SM, Shelley MC (2006) Work roles, management and perceived well-being for married women within family businesses. J Fam Econ Issues 27:523–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-006-9030-y

Legault MJ, Chasserio S (2003) Family obligations or cultural contraints? Obstacles in the path of professional women. J Intern Women’s Stud 4:108–125

Leymann H (1990) Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence Vict 5:119–126

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Li L, Wang Leung R (2001) Female managers in Asian hotels: profile and career challenges. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 13:189–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110110389511

Lyness KS, Thompson DE (2000) Climbing the corporate ladder: do female and male executives follow the same route. J Appl Psychol 85:86–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.86

Marzec M, Szczudlińska-Kanoś A (2023) The importance of work life balance for contemporary management and public policies. Eur Res Stud J 26:57–67

Mckelway M (2018) Women’s self-efficacy and women’s employment: Experimental evidence from India. Working paper, MIT Department of Economics, USA

Mensi-Klarbach H (2014) Gender in top management research: towards a comprehensive research framework. Manag Res Rev 37:538–552

Meyer P, Bigaret S (2012) Diviz: a software for modeling, processing and sharing algorithmic workflows in MCDA. Intell Decis Technol 6:283–296. https://doi.org/10.3233/idt-2012-0144

Morgan MS (2017) Glass ceilings and sticky floors: Drawing new ontologies. In: Cultures without Culturalism. Duke University Press, pp 145–169

Ng TWH, Eby LT, Sorensen KL, Feldman DC (2005) Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol 58:367–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

Nikolova M (2019) Switching to self-employment can be good for your health. J Bus Ventur 34:664–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.09.001

Nyberg A, Magnusson Hanson LL, Leineweber C, Johansson G (2015) Do predictors of career success differ between Swedish women and men? Data from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH). PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140516

O´Driscoll MP (1996) The interface between job and off-job roles: enhancement and conflict. Int Rev Ind Organ Psychol 11:279–306

O’Neil DA, Hopkins MM, Bilimoria D (2008) Women’s careers at the start of the 21st century: patterns and paradoxes. J Bus Ethics 80:727–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9465-6

Oakley JG (2000) Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. J Bus Ethics 27:321–334

Ohlott PJ, Ruderman MN, McCauley CD (1994) Gender differences in managers’ developmental job experiences. Acad Manag J 37:46–67

Oplatka I (2006) Women in educational administration within developing countries: towards a new international research agenda. J Educ Adm 44:604–624. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610704819

Palermo G (2004) Breaking the cultural mould: the key to women`s career success. Deakin University. https://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30010287

Pallares S, Martínez M (1993) Imágenes de la Dirección: metáforas de la función directiva desde la propia dirección. Rev Psicol 4:27

Peters TJ, Waterman R (1982) In search of excellence. HarperCollins, New York

Pletzer JL, Nikolova R, Kedzior KK, Voelpel SV (2015) Does gender matter? Female representation on Corporate Boards and Firm Financial Performance-a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0130005

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rey-Martí A, Tur Porcar A, Mas-Tur A (2015) Linking female entrepreneurs’ motivation to business survival. J Bus Res 68:810–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.033

Ridgeway CL (2001) Gender, status, and leadership. J Soc Issues 57:637–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00233

Rincón V, González M, Barrero K (2017) Women and leadership: gender barriers to senior management positions. Intang Cap 13:319. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.889

Rodríguez MP (2009) Situación de las mujeres en el Estado español. In: Dirigir en femenino Ibáñez A, Korkostegi MJ, Narbaiza L, Pando MJ, Rodríguez MP, Sanz B (eds) Editorial Almuzara, Madrid, pp. 23–42

Roy B, Słowiński R (2013) Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. EURO J Decis Process 1:69–97

Roy B, Bouyssou D (1993) Aide Multicritère à La Décision: Méthodes et Cas. Economica, Paris

Sarrió M, Barberá E, Ramos A, Candela C (2002) El techo de cristal en la promoción profesional de las mujeres. Rev Psicol Soc 17:167–182. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347402320007582

Schein VE (2001) A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. J Soc Issues 57:675–688

Sealy RHV, Singh V (2009) The importance of role models and demographic context for senior women’s work identity development. Int J Manag Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00262.x

Seibert SE, Kraimer ML, Liden RC (2001) A social capital theory of career success. Acad Manage J 44:219–237

Selva C, Sahagún MA, Pallarès S (2011) Estudios sobre trayectoria profesional y acceso de la mujer a cargos directivos: un análisis bibliométrico. Rev Psicol Trab Organ 27:227–242

Simpson R (2000) Gender mix and organisational fit: how gender imbalance at different levels of the organisation impacts on women managers. Women Manag Rev 15:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420010310173

Sommer M (2022) Women are less likely than men to be promoted. Here’s one reason why. MIT Management Sloan School, USA

Sullivan SE, Mainiero L (2008) Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to understand the changing patterns of women’s careers: designing HRD programs that attract and retain women. Adv Dev Hum Resour 10:32–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422307310110

Taherdoost H, Madanchian M (2023) Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia 3(1):77–87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006

Terjesen S (2005) Senior women managers’ transition to entrepreneurship: leveraging embedded career capital. Career Dev Int 10:246–259

Terjesen S, Sealy R, Singh V (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: a review and research agenda. Corp Gov Int Rev 17:320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x

Vanderbroeck P (2010) The traps that keep women from reaching the top and how to avoid them. J Manag Dev 29:764–770. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011072478

Wajcman J, Martin B (2002) Narratives of identity in modern management: The corrosion of gender difference. Sociology 36(4):985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803850203600410

Welter F, Baker T, Audretsch DB, Gartner WB (2017) Everyday entrepreneurship—a call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrep Theory Pract 41:311–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12258

World Economic Forum (2022) Global gender gap report. http://reports.weforum.org/globalgender-gap-report-2022 . Accessed 12 Jul 2022

Zabludovsky G (2007) México: Mujeres En Cargos de Dirección Del Sector Privado. Acad Rev Latinoam Adm 38:9–26

Zeng Z (2011) The myth of the glass ceiling: evidence from a stock-flow analysis of authority attainment. Soc Sci Res 40:312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.012

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was partially financed by Grant SERDigital PID2020-117244RB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain

María Luz Martín-Peña & María A. De Vicente y Oliva

Saint Loui des Francais High School, Madrid, Spain

Cristina R. Cachón-García

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MLM-P, CRC-G; Methodology: MAVO; Formal analysis and investigation: MLM-P, CRC-G, MAVO; Writing—original draft preparation: MLM-P, CRC-G; Writing—review and editing: MLM-P, CRC-G, MAVO; Validation: MLM-P, MAVO; Resources: MLM-P, CRC-G, MAVO; Supervision: MLM-P. All authors have revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and have read and agreed to the present version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Luz Martín-Peña .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Our institution’s relevant body deemed ethical approval not required because the study was not medical research nor regarded human experimentation as stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical guidelines outlined by the Human Subjects Ethics Committee of Rey Juan Carlos University, considering obtained and anonymized data for this non-interventional study. In the survey and interviews, a preamble was included indicating the collection of information for a research project, explaining what it consists of and what it is intended to obtain (objectives, the benefits that the information will bring, the voluntary nature of participation, the anonymous treatment of the data and reference to the treatment of the information in accordance with the Data Protection Act). There was also a contact person from whom information could be requested.

Informed consent

Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants. In the survey, a paragraph was included in which the respondent voluntarily agreed to participate in the study and that he/she gave his/her tacit consent by voluntarily answering the survey. In the interview, the participant knew the privacy and confidentiality rules before agreeing to the interview. They voluntarily agreed to participate in the study and that he/she gave his/her tacit consent by voluntarily answering the interview.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary material determining factors women executives, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Martín-Peña, M.L., Cachón-García, C.R. & De Vicente y Oliva, M.A. Determining factors and alternatives for the career development of women executives: a multicriteria decision model. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 436 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01936-z

Download citation

Received : 04 October 2022

Accepted : 12 July 2023

Published : 21 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01936-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Women and career development: a decade of research

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Counseling Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York 12222, USA.
• PMID: 9046555
• DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.31

This chapter reviews the vocational experiences of women as they have been revealed in the literature during the past decade. The review considers primarily empirical literature; findings are sampled relative to women's self-concept development, readiness for vocational choices, actual choices made, work-force entry, experiences at work, and retirement. Suggestions are made regarding the next generation of research on women and career development.

Publication types

• Career Choice*
• Career Mobility*
• Conflict of Interest
• Parenting / psychology
• Self Concept
• Women, Working / psychology*

Putting science to work for the health of women

Career Development Programs & Projects

Supporting women in biomedical careers, mentored career development programs and projects.

The Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) program was established by ORWH and its NIH institute, center, and office partners in 2000. BIRCWH (pronounced “birch”) is an institutional mentored career-development program designed to connect scholars who are junior faculty to senior faculty with a shared interest in women’s health and sex differences research. The program provides research support for scholars as they conduct interdisciplinary basic, translational, behavioral, clinical, and/or health services research relevant to women’s health and sex and gender research. BIRCWH has graduated more than 750 BIRCWH Scholars, the vast majority achieving productive research careers, have impactful publications, and received at least one NIH-level research grant.  

Reentry administrative supplements are given to existing NIH research grants to support full- and part-time research by people of all genders returning to active research careers after interruptions for family responsibilities or other qualifying circumstances. During the period FY 2012-2021, the majority (80%) of the applicants were women and the most cited reason for the hiatus is childrearing. Reintegration supplements also provide opportunities for researchers to transition from unsafe or discriminatory environments to environments that are safe and supportive.  Retooling supplements enable cross-sectoral collaborations that would empower early and mid-career investigators to acquire novel skills and perspectives that would enhance their chances of advancing their careers. 

These administrative supplements for K and RPG awardees aim to retain investigators facing critical life events such as childbirth, adoption, serious personal health issues or illness and/or debilitating conditions, high-risk pregnancy, as well as primary caregiving responsibilities for an ailing spouse, child, partner, parent or a member of the immediate family. The supplements provide support as the PI transitions from career development grants to R01s or as they transition to the first renewal of their first independent research project grant award. In the first two years (2021-2022) since the issuance of these 2 FOAs, about 65% of applications for both programs were awarded. The majority of the awardees were women, with childbirth as the most frequently cited critical life event.  

The LSP will create a more robust cadre of researchers dedicated to women’s health research. The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) and ORWH are partnering to launch a pilot program to support and train research scholars by helping them acquire and hone team science leadership and mentoring skills. The Team Science Leadership Scholars Program (LSP) will be funded by ORWH and embedded within the Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP® AIM) program, which NIAMS and ORWH both support.  A funding opportunity announcement was released in December 2022 and the program is now accepting applications through February 20, 2023.

The BIRCWH Scholars Innovation Program aims to provide training and mentorship in the critical area of substance use disorders/mental health and women’s health. The program primarily targets BIRCWH scholars and is open to interested Specialized Centers for Research Excellence (SCORE) on Sex Differences Career Enhancement Core Scholars. The aims of the program are to develop: 1) a didactic series and online training experience focused on sex and gender differences in substance use disorders (SUDs) and mental health issues related to SUDs throughout the lifespan; 2) a consultative and mentoring system to allow BIRCWH scholars to work with Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) SCORE investigators, including visits to MUSC or national meetings for networking and fostering collaborations; and 3) a grant review and mock study section for BIRCWH scholars submitting grants focused on sex/gender differences and mental health issues related to SUDs.

More Details to Come 

The SCORE program funds and supports Centers of Excellence around the country that serve as vital hubs for research exploring sex differences in health and disease—Each Center has three interrelated research projects headed by leaders in the field of sex and gender.  A key element of each center in the SCORE program is a Career Enhancement Core, which aims to provide resources and pilot funding to train the next generation of scientists in the study of sex differences.

The NIH Loan Repayment Programs (LRPs) are a set of programs established by Congress and designed to recruit and retain highly qualified health professionals into biomedical or biobehavioral research careers. The escalating costs of advanced education and training in medicine and clinical specialties are forcing some scientists to abandon their research careers for higher-paying private industry or private practice careers. The LRPs counteract that financial pressure by repaying up to $50,000 annually of a researcher's qualified educational debt in return for a commitment to engage in NIH mission-relevant research.

The Women's Reproductive Health Research (WRHR) Program was established in 1998 by NICHD, with support from ORWH. The focus of this institutional career development program is to create a pool of clinically trained junior obstetrics/gynecologic investigators representing several subspecialties and emerging areas with expertise in women's reproductive health research in academic settings across the US. 

Initiatives and Projects to Retain and Advance Careers of Women: Promoting Diversity in the Workplace

The NIH Prize for Enhancing Faculty Gender Diversity in Biomedical and Behavioral Science recognizes institutions whose biomedical and behavioral science departments, centers, or divisions have achieved sustained improvement in gender diversity. Understanding that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to enhancing diversity in academia and that ideas based on evidence are necessary to achieve systemic change, this prize acknowledges and recognizes transformative approaches, systems, projects, programs, and processes that have successfully enhanced and sustained gender diversity within an institution. All prize past and future recipients and honorable mentions substantially contribute to systemic change aimed at addressing gender diversity and equity issues among faculty members within their institutions' biomedical and behavioral science departments.

The Advancing Gender Inclusive Excellence Research Initiative (U54), a cooperative agreement, was published in 2021 to support a coordinating center (CC) that will serve as an online central repository for sharing resources, tools, technologies, expertise, and strategies that address challenges in overcoming systemic gender-based inequities impacting the biosciences academic and research workforce. It will be available to interested parties searching for ways to identify and overcome systemic gender-based inequities and enable women to attain leadership positions in STEMM research. The Funding Opportunity Announcement was recently reissued with applications due in Spring 2023.

The Notice of Special Interest (NOSI): Interventions Designed to Change the Culture to Mitigate or Eliminate Sexual Harassment in the Biomedical Research Enterprise (NOT-OD-21-150) was published in 2021 to support research on evidence-based interventions that will diminish or eliminate sexual harassment in the biomedical research environment by producing a change in the institutional culture where harassment is tolerated. Two awards were issued in the first year of the FOA.

The Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine of the NASEM has been contracted to conduct a comprehensive study to explore promising and innovative policies and practices for supporting caregivers working in STEMM. The findings of the report (to be released in 2024) are expected to inform leaders in academia and government with evidence-based strategies that not only raise awareness of the inequities in this space but also promote culture change resulting in the retention and advancement of STEMM professionals with caregiving responsibilities. Two public symposia will be held in 2023.

More Details to Come

The ORWH collaborates with the NIH OITE programs to support intramural trainees working on all NIH campuses. ORWH supports two important diversity programs: 1) HiSTEP2.0, a program to support high school students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and 2) OITE Postbac Enrichment Pro

The ORWH collaborates with the NIH OITE programs to support intramural trainees working on all NIH campuses. ORWH supports two important diversity programs: 1) HiSTEP2.0, a program to support high school students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and 2) OITE Postbac Enrichment Program (OITE-PEP), a program to bring a cadre of diverse post-bachelor's degree holders to NIH for training before graduate or professional school. ORWH also supports the OITE diversity certificate program, the Resilient Scientist Series, mentor training, the OITE mental health series, and leadership programs, some of which are open to trainees and staff in the intramural and extramural community. Over 50% of trainees who attend OITE programs identify as female.

Travel awards provided by the NIH and the National Medical Association (NMA) are awarded to senior residents, fellows, and junior faculty who are interested in pursuing careers in academic medicine or biomedical research. Led by NIDDK, ORWH together with the NICHD and NHLBI participate in the program, with ORWH Director Dr. Janine Clayton giving inspirational talks during the NMA annual assemblies held in 2021 and 2022.

Learn More  

The Women in Science website is one of the many achievements of the NIH Working Group on Women in Biomedical Careers (WgWBC) whose goal is to consider barriers for women in science and develop innovative strategies to promote the entry, recruitment, retention, and sustained advancement of women in biomedical and research careers. Celebrating the successes of women in science can serve as an inspiration to both women and men. The women’s profiles that are featured on this website highlight their contributions to research, what they learned along the way, and advice they have for other women in science. You will also find information, tools, and resources that support and promote the entry, recruitment, retention, and sustained advancement of women in biomedical research careers.

In 2007, in response to the National Academies Report, "Beyond Bias and Barriers, Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering," NIH established the NIH Working Group on Women in Biomedical Careers, co-chaired by the former NIH Director, Dr. Francis Collins, and the Director of the Office of Research on Women's Health, Dr. Janine Clayton. The focus of the working group is to assess successful strategies and develop programs and policies that aid the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in biomedical faculty and leadership positions. In 2008, the group issued a NIH-wide request for applications (RFA), "Research on Causal Factors and Interventions that Promote and Support the Careers of Women in Biomedical and Behavioral Science and Engineering". The RFA supported the funding of 14 research grants that investigated a range of obstacles facing women at all stages of the scientific career pipeline, and assessed interventions that begin to address these obstacles. The grants totaled $16.8 million over four years with support from 11 NIH Institutes and Centers and four Offices within the NIH Office of the Director.

• Career Support
• ORWH MISSION AREA: Career Development Programs & Projects
• Related ORWH Programs & Initiatives
• Funded Programs and Principal Investigators
• Prize Competition for Enhancing Faculty Gender Diversity: Toolkit
• ICO Contacts
• Research Continuity and Retention Supplements
• Women of Color Research Network
• NIH Working Group on Women in Biomedical Careers
• NIH Women in Science Website

Related Resources

• Clearinghouse for Training Modules to Enhance Data Reproducibility
• Achieving Gender Equity at Conferences
• Women in STEM Research: Better Data and Information Sharing Could Improve Oversight of Federal Grant-making and Title IX Compliance
• Civil Rights Protections in NIH-Supported Research, Programs, Conferences and Other Activities
• Fact Sheet: ORWH Career Development Initiatives
• Career Development & Mentoring Resources
• Women Scientists in Action
• Local Legends: Celebrating America's Local Women Physicians

Director’s Messages

March 27, 2024

February 27, 2024

January 25, 2024

November 30, 2023

VICTORIA’S SECRET GLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN’S CANCERS CAREER DEVELOPMENT AWARD, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PELOTONIA & AACR

The Victoria’s Secret Global Fund for Women's Cancers was established to accelerate innovation in cancer research for women, by women. This groundbreaking initiative will fund innovative research aimed at progressing outcomes for women's cancers and invest in the next generation of women scientists who represent the diverse population they serve. By focusing on prevention, detection, diagnostic, and treatment innovations for women’s cancers and advancing outcomes for cancer health disparities, Victoria’s Secret aims to improve and save the lives of millions of women around the world.

The Victoria’s Secret Global Fund for Women’s Cancers Career Development Award, in partnership with Pelotonia & AACR is intended to fund innovative research projects in breast and gynecologic cancers and to invest in the next generation of female early-stage scientists domestically and globally. The aim of this award is to foster innovation in  the understanding, prevention, interception, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and gynecologic cancers with the goal of eliminating cancer health disparities and improving patient outcomes. The research proposed for funding may be in basic, translational, clinical, or population sciences. Proposals focused on research into the causes of cancer health disparities and approaches to achieve equity in outcomes as well as applicants belonging to racial or ethnic groups shown to be underrepresented in the cancer-related sciences workforce are especially encouraged ( AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020 ).

The grant provides $206,000 over two years for expenses related to the research project, which may include salary and benefits of the grant recipient (who must devote at least 75% of their total effort to research in breast or a gynecologic cancer),  collaborators, postdoctoral or clinical research fellows, graduate students (including tuition costs associated with graduate students’ education and training), or research assistants; research/laboratory supplies; equipment; publication charges for manuscripts that pertain directly to the funded project; and other research expenses.

Deadline for Nominations: May 15, 2024

Applicants must be female investigators with a doctoral degree (PhD, MD, MD/PhD, or equivalent) in a related field and not currently be a candidate for a further doctoral degree.  Applicants belonging to racial or ethnic groups shown to be underrepresented in the cancer-related sciences workforce are especially encouraged to apply. 

At the start of the grant term on September 1, 2024, applicants must:

Hold a faculty position with the title of assistant professor. Appointments such as research assistant professor, adjunct assistant professor, and assistant professor research track are eligible.  Applicants that have progressed to associate professor or equivalent appointments are not eligible.

• If eligibility is based on a future position, the position must be confirmed at the time of application and CANNOT be contingent upon receiving this grant.
• If the future position is at a different institution than the applicant’s current institution, the applicant must contact the AACR’s Research and Grants Administration Department (the AACR’s RGA) at  [email protected]  before submitting their application for information on additional verification materials/signatures that may be required.
• Have started their first independent faculty position  within the past 6 years  from the grant start date ( i.e. cannot have held an independent faculty position before September 1, 2018 ).
• Must devote at least 75% of their total effort to research in breast or a gynecologic cancer.
• Have independent laboratory space as confirmed by their institution.
• Work at an academic, medical, or research institution anywhere in the world.

• Career & community
• Career development

Professional development

Professional development — the lifelong process of building new knowledge and skills — is for everyone! To support your journey, UC offers programs, partnerships and access to UC Extension classes and certificate programs.

Systemwide programs and resources

Professional development at your location, uc learning center, uc extension, my uc career.

Achieve your career goals at UC with help from this interactive, self-paced program! From exploring the university’s career paths to creating a perfect pitch and cover letter, building your resume, interview prep and more, My UC Career helps you plan your next move. Start by entering your UC email address on the My UC Career homepage .

Gartner CEB Memberships

All UC employees have access to Gartner, the world’s leading member-based advisory service. Gartner provides research, tools, resources and best-practice guidance for several disciplines and industries. Create a free account with your UC email address on the Gartner welcome page .

UC Women’s Initiative for Professional Development (UC WI)

UC WI is an experiential professional development program that supports the success and advancement of mid-career, woman-identified professionals. It is is open to all employees who support and are committed to this mission. Applications and nominations are accepted from faculty, academic personnel and non-academic staff, both people managers and independent contributors, at all UC locations.

UC Managing Implicit Bias Series

Being aware of our implicit biases and understanding how they impact the ways in which we interact with others is a key component of embodying UC’s equity, diversity and inclusion values. This six-course online training series helps staff at all levels better understand implicit bias and how to counter it.

To receive credit, UC Employees should log into the UC Learning Center and search the catalog for the Managing Implicit Bias course titles. They can also contact their location’s Human Resources  Training, Learning and Development for assistance.

Non-UC employees  can take these courses as well. Visit  Systemwide Human Resources eCourses  for access.

UC Core Competencies (PDF)  

UC’s core competencies define how the university views talent and promotes behaviors that reflect our vision and values. Our systemwide framework maps the foundation for our workplace culture. UC locations may have implemented customized staff competencies, select your location below to view more information.

• UC Experience Conversations

These conversations can be included as part of ongoing 1:1 conversations between managers and employees, and are a valuable way for managers and employees to discuss new or shifted career aspirations and provide employees with an opportunity to discuss areas of importance to them.

Each UC location Human Resources office provides professional development programs, resources, and tools for their location employees. 

• Agriculture and Natural Resources
• Davis Campus and Health 
• Irvine Campus
• Irvine Health
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
• Los Angeles Campus
• Los Angeles Health
• San Diego Campus
• San Diego Health
• San Francisco
• Santa Barbara
• Office of the President

Links to login pages to the UC Learning Center for each location.

Our continuing education arm offers innovative educational programs for adult learners worldwide in an array of subject areas. In some cases, UC staff may be eligible for reduced tuition.

• Los Angeles
• Equity, diversity and inclusion
• Healthy workplaces and how to report concerns
• Prevention of sexual harassment and sexual violence
• Principles of community
• Career tracks frequently asked questions
• Operational and technical
• Professional
• Supervisory and management
• Leadership and management development
• UC Managing Implicit Bias series
• Employee resource, advocacy and affinity groups

Search for jobs

Uc staff professional development policies.

• PPSM-50: Professional Development
• PPSM-51: Reduced Fee Enrollment
• Represented employees: See your bargaining unit’s contract

Part 1. Overview Information

National Institutes of Health ( NIH )

K12 Physician Scientist Award Program (PSA)

 August 23, 2023 - Notice of Intent to Publish a Funding Opportunity for The NCI Worta McCaskill-Stevens Career Development Award for Community Oncology and Prevention Research (K12 Clinical Trial Optional) See Notice NOT-CA-23-081 

See Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.

The purpose of the NCI Worta McCaskill-Stevens Career Development Award for Community Oncology and Prevention Research (K12) is to support the training of clinical scientists in community cancer prevention, screening, intervention, control, and treatment research. Special emphasis is placed on training clinical scientists whose career goal is to improve the care and outcomes of minority health populations and populations with health disparities  that are underrepresented in clinical research by increasing their access to and representation as human subjects in cancer clinical trials using an equity lens.

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) allows the appointment of Scholars proposing to serve as the lead investigator of an independent community-based clinical trial; proposing to increase the integration of cancer health disparities research questions into clinical trials; or proposing a separate ancillary study to an existing prevention, screening, intervention, control or treatment trial; or proposing to gain research experience in a community-based clinical trial led by another investigator; or proposing to serve as leader of innovative clinical trial approaches that expand engagement of minority health populations and populations with health disparities that are underrepresented as human subjects in cancer clinical trials, as part of their research and career development. 

Not Applicable

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.

It is critical that applicants follow the Training (T) Instructions in the  How to Apply - Application Guide , except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from the  NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ). Conformance to all requirements (both in the How to Apply - Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the How to Apply - Application Guide , follow the program-specific instructions.  Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

• Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
• Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
• Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section i. notice of funding opportunity description.

The overall goal of the NIH Research Training and Career Development programs is to help ensure that a diverse pool of highly trained scientists is available in appropriate scientific disciplines to address the Nation’s biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research needs. More information about Career programs may be found at the NIH Extramural Research Training and Career Development website.

Investigators proposing NIH-defined clinical trials may refer to the Research Methods Resources website for information about developing statistical methods and study designs.

Note : This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) allows appointment of Scholars proposing to serve as the lead investigator of an independent clinical trial; or proposing a separate ancillary study; or proposing to gain research experience in a clinical trial led by another investigator, as part of their research and career development.

The purpose of the Worta McCaskill-Stevens K12 programs funding opportunity is to support institutional career development awards designed to prepare newly trained clinicians who are committed to independent research careers in community oncology, prevention, or treatment research, and to facilitate their transition to more advanced support mechanisms or independent research funding (e.g., K08 or R01-equivalent).  Special emphasis is placed on training clinical scientists whose career goal is to improve the care and outcomes of minority health populations and populations with health disparities  that are underrepresented in clinical research by increasing their access to and representation as human subjects in cancer clinical trials using an equity lens.

Program Description

This new NCI K12 funding opportunity focusing on community oncology and prevention is named in honor of the late medical oncologist Dr. Worta McCaskill-Stevens, a leader and visionary in designing clinical oncology research to help all populations benefit from its advances, with specific emphasis on the recruitment and retention of minority health populations and populations with health disparities as human subjects in clinical trials. Having worked at the NCI for 25 years (1998-2023), Dr. McCaskill-Stevens, Director of the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) and Chief of the Community Oncology and Prevention Trials Research Group in the Division of Cancer Prevention, led advances in breast cancer prevention and community-based clinical trials for cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and control.

This funding opportunity will encourage applications proposing creative transdisciplinary research and innovative institutional career development programs focused on community oncology, prevention, and treatment research with an equity lens. Program areas of interest include, but are not limited to, cancer prevention, screening, intervention, control, and treatment, cancer care delivery research; the integration of cancer health disparities research within these scientific areas; community-based oncology research both nationally and internationally; the management of comorbidities within clinical trials; and molecular research that helps to identify those individuals who will benefit from cancer prevention and control interventions. 

The Worta McCaskill-Stevens K12 programs will be required to have at least two oncology or cancer prevention specialties represented among the included faculty and the pool of K12 appointees (Scholars). NCI K12 programs are expected to leverage the institution’s unique strengths in these oncology or cancer prevention specialties and to incorporate the latest research and technology advancements in designing cutting-edge career development curricula. NCI K12 programs must establish individualized career development plans to accommodate Scholars with different levels of prior research training/experience and assign two mentors to each Scholar, such as a clinician conducting patient-oriented cancer health disparities research and a cancer care delivery researcher with expertise in serving minority health populations or populations with cancer health disparities.

Applicant organizations are encouraged to recruit a pool of potential Scholars and prospective program faculty and mentors from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented groups in biomedical research, such as underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, persons with disabilities, and women (see, e.g., NOT-OD-20-031 ).

See  Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

Section II. Award Information

Grant: A financial assistance mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.

The OER Glossary and the How to Apply - Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.

Optional: Accepting applications that either propose or do not propose clinical trial(s).

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Direct costs are limited to $50,000 in the initial year of new (Type 1) programs and may be used for program planning and development, advertising, and recruiting of the first class of Scholars. K12 Scholars will begin work in the second year of the grant, where costs are limited to $750,000 direct costs annually. For renewal (Type 2) applications, the program may request up to $750,000 direct costs annually in each of the 5 years.

Funds may be used only for those expenses that are directly related to and necessary for the career development of K12 Scholars and must be expended in conformance with OMB Cost Principles and the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

The award budget includes salary support for the PD(s)/PI(s) and Scholars, research and development support, and administrative support costs (as described under Personnel Costs and Other Program Related Expenses).

The project award duration for this funding opportunity may not exceed 5 years.

Other Award Budget Information

Individuals designing, directing, and implementing the career development program may request salary and fringe benefits appropriate for the person-months devoted to the program. Salaries requested may not exceed the levels commensurate with the institution's policy for similar positions and may not exceed the congressionally mandated cap. If mentoring interactions and other activities with scholars are considered a regular part of an individual's academic duties, then mentoring and other interactions with Scholars are non-reimbursable from grant funds. 

Up to 1.2 person-months total effort per annum may be allocated for all PDs/PIs of the K12 program to partially offset their salaries and associated fringe benefit costs, depending on commitment of effort ( https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-045.html ).These salary and fringe benefit expenses must be included in Section A of the R&R Budget. 

Salary requests for the Program Faculty/Mentors are not allowed.   

Scholars are those individuals who benefit from the proposed activities and experiences involved in the career development program. Scholar costs must be justified as specifically required for the proposed career development program and based on institutional policies for salaries paid to individuals in similar positions, regardless of the source of funds. These expenses must be itemized in the proposed budget.

Scholar salaries can be requested up to $110,000 for 75% of full-time professional effort, in accordance with K-awardee salary guidelines, along with associated fringe benefits.

The total salary requested for Scholars must be established on the base salary of a full-time, 12-month staff appointment. Scholars are required to devote a minimum of 9 person-months (75%) of full-time professional effort to conducting health-related research with the remaining effort devoted to activities related to the development of a successful research career.

Surgeon-scientists with surgical duties may request a minimum of 6 person-months (50% full-time professional effort) to the K12. A clear justification must be provided in the application when requesting less than 75% full-time professional effort (less than 9 person-months). The sponsoring institution may supplement the NIH salary contribution up to a level that is consistent with the institution's salary scale. However, supplementation may not be from federal funds unless specifically authorized by the federal program from which such funds are derived. ( https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_12/12.8_allowable_and_unallowable_costs.htm#Salaries )

Scholar appointments are up to two (2) years in length, with the option of an extra year for Scholars who would benefit. The application must clearly indicate the number of scholar appointments proposed for each year. Candidates must have a full-time appointment at the applicant institution or a partnering institution. Scholar support consistsof 12-month appointments, provided their progress towards an independent academic career is on track and satisfactory.

Scholar Research and Development Support: Up to $30,000 per individual Scholar may be provided for the following types of research-related expenses: (a) research expenses, such as supplies, equipment, and technical personnel; (b) tuition and fees related to required career development courses and activities; (c) travel to scientific meetings or training that the institution determines to be necessary for the individual’s career development experience such as the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) annual meeting; and (d) statistical services including personnel and computer time. These funds may be pooled for program-wide activities only if such activities support the career development of all Scholars. It is expected that the K12 Scholars will be working in a funded research environment and that support provided by the K12 grant will augment existing research support to the Scholar. These expenses must be itemized in Section F of the R&R Budget.

For information regarding NIH policy on determining full-time professional effort for career awards, see:  NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Consultant costs, equipment, supplies, travel for key persons, and other program-related expenses may be included in the proposed budget. These expenses must be justified as specifically required by the proposed program and must not duplicate items generally available at the applicant institution.

In years other than year 1 of a new award, if applicable and justified, up to $26,000 per year may be requested to defray the costs of a consultant, Program Administrator, and/or program assistant with responsibilities directly associated with the institutional career development program; salaries must be commensurate with institutional policy for similar positions and specifically identified and justified. When applicable, this expense must be itemized in Section B of the R&R Budget.

Travel for key persons and Advisory Committee members must be justified as specifically required by the proposed program and must not duplicate items generally available for similar programs at the applicant institution. These expenses must be itemized in Section D of the R&R Budget.

Travel funds at the rate of $1,500 per person will be provided to defray the travel costs to attend a K12 community conference (a regular conference voluntarily organized by an institution(s) with an NCI K12 award for the purpose of gathering K12 Scholars and Mentors for exchange of knowledge, career development and networking). Each year, one Mentor and about half the total Scholars will be supported. It is anticipated that a Scholar will attend this conference in their first year of support, and if applicable again in their third year. Each Program would decide who would receive this funding, giving priority to Scholars who have not previously received it, the Scholar’s ability to travel at the time of the conference, and standing in the program. Other Scholars/mentors/program leaders could attend using funds from their institution as available.

Indirect Costs (also known as Facilities & Administrative [F&A] Costs) are reimbursed at 8% of modified total direct costs (exclusive of tuition and fees, consortium costs in excess of $25,000, and expenditures for equipment), rather than on the basis of a negotiated rate agreement.

NIH grants policies as described in the  NIH Grants Policy Statement  will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)

Local Governments

• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)
• U.S. Territory or Possession
• Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
• Faith-based or Community-based Organizations

Federal Governments

• Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government

The sponsoring institution must assure support for the proposed program. Appropriate institutional commitment to the program includes the provision of adequate staff, facilities, and educational resources that can contribute to the planned program.

The applicant institution must have a strong and high quality research program in the area(s) proposed under this NOFO and must have the requisite faculty, staff, potential trainees and facilities on site to conduct the proposed institutional program. In many cases, it is anticipated that the proposed program will complement other ongoing career development programs occurring at the applicant institution and that a substantial number of program faculty will have active research projects in which participating scholars may gain relevant experiences consistent with their research interests and goals.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are not eligible to apply.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations  are not  eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , are allowed.

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. Failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications  for additional information.

• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code – Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) – A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• eRA Commons – Once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their Grants.gov registration; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov – Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research training program as the Training Program Director/Principal Investigator (Training PD/PI) is invited to work with their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities, NOT-OD-22-019 .

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the How to Apply - Application Guide .

The PD/PI should be an established investigator in the scientific area in which the application is targeted and capable of providing both administrative and scientific leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed program. The PD/PI will be responsible for the selection and appointment of trainees to the approved research training program, and for the overall direction, management, administration, and evaluation of the program. The PD/PI will be expected to monitor and assess the program and submit all documents and reports as required. The PD/PI has responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the program and is responsible for appointing members of the Advisory Committee, using their recommendations to determine the appropriate allotment of funds.

The PD(s)/PI(s) are expected to have independent R01 and/or R01-equivalent cancer-focused grant support at the time of application and award. For the NCI K12, R01 or R01-equivalent awards are defined as grants or contracts of at least 3 years in duration and $150,000 per year in direct costs, including those supporting clinical trials. 

2. Cost Sharing

This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement   Section 1.2 Definition of Terms .

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is programmatically distinct.

NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time per  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application . This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see  NIH Grants Policy Statement 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications ).

Programs are encouraged to build a  team of preceptors/mentors that includes, for example, faculty at different career stages (i.e., junior as well as senior faculty). Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are encouraged to participate as program faculty. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities, NOT-OD-22-019 . 

Scholars to be supported by the institutional career development program must be at the career level for which the planned program is intended. Scholars are expected to devote a minimum of 9 person-months (75% of full-time professional effort) during the appointment on the K12 award.

Scholars must be citizens or noncitizen nationals of the United States or have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time of appointment. Additional details on citizenship requirements are available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Scholars to be supported by the institutional career development program must be at the career level for which the planned program is intended, should not have reached research independence, and should benefit from the proposed activities and experiences involved in the career development program. All Scholars are required to devote a minimum of 9 person-months (75% of full-time professional effort) during the appointment on the K12 award. Surgeon-scientists with surgical duties may request a minimum of 6 person-months (50% full-time professional effort) to the K12. A clear justification must be provided in the application when requesting less than 75% full-time professional effort (less than 9 person-months).

Scholars on the K12 award must be individuals with a clinical doctoral degree. Such degrees include, but are not limited to, the MD, DO, DDS, DMD, OD, DC, PharmD, ND (Doctor of Naturopathy), DNP (Doctor of Nursing Practice), and DVM. Individuals with a PhD or other doctoral degree in clinical disciplines such as medical physics, clinical psychology, nursing, clinical genetics, speech-language pathology, audiology, or rehabilitation are also eligible. Non-clinically trained PhDs or PhDs without clinical/patient responsibilities are not eligible K12 Scholars.

Scholars must be citizens or noncitizen national of the United States or have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time of appointment. Details on citizenship requirements are available in the  NIH Grants Policy Statement .

It is acknowledged that, among all medical specialties, surgeons require significant clinical activity to maintain their clinical competency skills and, in general, may be unable to devote the required level of effort of at least 9 person-months (75%) to research and career development activities on mentored career development awards.

NCI will allow U.S.-licensed surgeon-scientists with active surgical duties to request less than the required 9 person-months (75%) full-time professional effort under a K12 career development award for the specific purpose of maintaining specialty clinical competency. Surgeon-scientist Scholars may not request less than 6 person-months (50%) full-time professional effort devoted to research and career development activities. Scholars must provide a justification clearly stating the reason(s) for the reduced amount of effort.

A copy of the Scholar's current U.S. clinical license (and board certification if applicable) must be provided, and all relevant information—surgical training, clinical license, expiration date, board certification—must be present in the Scholar’s NIH Biosketch.

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the Training (T) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide  except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the How to Apply - Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Page Limitations

All page limitations described in the How to Apply - Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

Instructions for Application Submission

The following section supplements the instructions found in the How to Apply - Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.

Substitute the term “scholars” for all references to “trainees” in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, and substitute the term “career development” for all references to “training” in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

SF424(R&R) Cover

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

SF424 (R&R) Other Project Information

Substitute the term “scholars” for all references to “trainees” in the How to Apply - Application Guide , and substitute the term “career development” for all references to “training” in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

Project Summary/Abstract. Provide an abstract of the entire application. Include the objectives, rationale and design of the career development program, as well as key activities in the training plan. Indicate the planned duration of appointments, the projected number of scholars including their levels (i.e., predoctoral , postdoctoral , short-term faculty ), and intended trainee/scholar outcomes

The filename provided for each “Other Attachment” will be the name used for the bookmark in the electronic application in eRA Commons.

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile Expanded

Follow all instructions provided in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

PHS 398 Training Subaward Budget Attachment(s)

Research and Related (R&R) Budget

Follow all instructions provided in the How to Apply - Application Guide with the following additional modifications:

• Include all personnel other than the Training PD(s)/PI(s) in the Other Personnel section, including clerical and administrative staff. Also include proposed salary costs for planned scholars.
• Do not complete the section on Participant/Trainee Support Costs.

PHS 398 Research Training Program Plan

The PHS 398 Research Training Program Plan Form is comprised of the following sections:

Training Program

• Faculty, Scholars, and Training Record
• Other Training Program Sections
• Appendix- Note that the Appendix should only be used in circumstances covered in the NIH policy on appendix materials or if the NOFO specifically instructs applicants to do so.

Particular attention must be given to the required Training Data Tables . Applicants should summarize, in the body of the application, key data from the tables that highlight the characteristics of the applicant pool, faculty mentors, the educational and career outcomes of past participants, and other factors that contribute to the overall environment of the program. Please note that the race, ethnicity, or sex of scholar applicants, scholars, or faculty mentors will not be considered in the application review process or when making funding decisions.

Program Plan

Program Administration.

Institutions with existing programs must explain what distinguishes this program from the others, how their programs will synergize with one another, if applicable, and make it clear that the pool of faculty, potential scholars, and resources are robust enough to support additional programs. When a program administrator position is planned, a description of the scientific expertise, leadership, and administrative capabilities essential to coordinate a program for developing investigators must be included in the application.

In the event that a clinical trial may be proposed, provide documentation of the PD/PI(s) expertise, experience, and ability to oversee the organization, management and implementation of the clinical trial, including any feasibility or ancillary study, proposed by Scholar(s).

Proposed Training.

In the event that a clinical trial may be proposed, provide documentation of the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the clinical trial, including any feasibility or ancillary study, proposed Scholar(s).

Institutional Environment and Commitment to the Program

The application must include a statement from the sponsoring institution describing the commitment to the planned program. The institutional commitment to the proposed program must focus on supporting Community Oncology and Prevention Research. The sponsoring institution must assure that essential time will be allowed for the PD(s)/PI(s), other faculty, mentors, as well as the required protected time for Scholars selected for the program must expend a minimum 6 person-months (50%) full-time professional effort for clinician-scientists in surgical specialties and 9 person-months for all other Scholars equivalent to 75% full-time professional effort.  

​​​​​Plan for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research

Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for Plan for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research as provided in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

Program Faculty.

If any mentors will supervise a Scholar proposing to either lead a clinical trial, or gain research experience in a clinical trial, provide documentation of their expertise, experience, and ability to provide guidance in the organization, management and implementation of the proposed clinical trial, ancillary, or feasibility study and help him/her to meet the study timelines.

Scholar Candidates.

If the event that a clinical trial may be proposed, discuss the potential of prospective Scholars to organize, manage, and implement the proposed clinical trial, feasibility or ancillary study.

Limited items are allowed in the Appendix. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide ; any instructions provided here are in addition to the How to Apply - Application Guide instructions.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

All instructions in the  How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional modifications:

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

DO NOT USE. Attempts to submit a full, detailed study record will result in a validation error.

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).

If you answered “Yes” to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must complete a Delayed Onset Study.

PHS Assignment Request Form

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 2. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications .

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review .

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . 

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 7.9.1 Selected Items of Cost . 

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the How to Apply - Application Guide . Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply – Application Guide . If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by NCI, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy .

Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.

Section V. Application Review Information

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.

Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

Overall Impact

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood that the proposed training program will prepare individuals for successful, productive scientific research careers and thereby exert a sustained influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed.

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of the merit of the training program and give a separate score for each. When applicable, the reviewers will consider relevant questions in the context of proposed short-term training. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact.

Career Development Program and Environment

• Does the proposed program clearly outline a plan to recruit and develop well qualified junior investigators for successful careers as biomedical or clinical researchers?
• Is there evidence of an adequate pool of potential Scholars who could benefit from receiving career development support?
• Are the content and duration of any proposed didactic, training-related, and research-related activities of the program appropriate?
• Are appropriate timelines indicated for career progression and transition to independence?
• Does the institutional environment (e.g., research facilities and other relevant resources) in which the program will be conducted contribute to the probability of success?
• Does the proposed career development program benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements?
• Does the proposed career development program have specific emphasis on training clinical scientists whose career goal is to meet the needs of minority health populations and populations with health disparities for access to clinical care and participation as human subjects in clinical research?
• Is the institutional commitment to the proposed program focusing on Community Oncology and Prevention Research?
• If multiple sites are participating, is this adequately justified in terms of the career development and research experiences provided?
• Isthere adequate documentation describing the responsibilities of the advisory committee with regard to the provision of input, guidance and oversight of the program?
• Is there sufficient assurance that the required effort of the PD(s)/PI(s), mentors and Scholars will be devoted directly to the research training, career development and related activities?
• If clinical trials may be proposed Scholar(s), are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed? Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial feasibility or ancillary study at the proposed site(s) or centers? If applicable, are there plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate? If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial? If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?

Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s))

• Do the PD(s)/PI(s) and Program Administrator (if applicable) have the experience to develop, direct and administer the proposed program?
• Does the leadership team bring complementary and integrated expertise on Community Oncology and Prevention Research to the program?
• Is there evidence that an appropriate level of effort will be devoted by the program leadership to ensure program objectives?
• Are the research qualifications, scientific stature, previous leadership and mentoring experience and track record(s) appropriate for the proposed career development program?
• Are the PD(s)/PI(s) currently engaged in research relevant to the scientific area of the proposed program? 
• With regard to the proposed leadership for the career development program, do the PD/PI(s) have the expertise, experience, and ability to oversee the organization, management and implementation of the proposed clinical trial?

For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs

• Is a strong justification provided that the multiple PD/PI leadership approach will benefit the career development program and the scholars?
• Is a strong and compelling leadership approach evident, including the designated roles and responsibilities, governance, and organizational structure consistent with and justified by the aims of the training program and the complementary expertise of the PDs/PIs?
• With regard to the proposed leadership for the career development program, do the PDs/PIs have the expertise, experience, and ability to oversee the organization, management and implementation of the proposed clinical trial?
• Do the mentors have appropriate expertise and experience, as well as track records of past mentoring and training?
• Are the quality and extent of the mentors’ roles in providing guidance and scientific advice to the scholars acceptable?
• If the program will support clinical trial research for the Scholar(s), do the mentors who will supervise the Scholar(s) have the expertise, experience, and ability to provide appropriate guidance in the organization, management, and implementation of the proposed clinical trial, ancillary, or feasibility study and help him/her to meet milestones and timelines?
• Do the preceptors/mentors who will supervise the Scholar(s) have the expertise, experience, and ability to provide guidance in the organization, management and implementation of a clinical trial, ancillary, or feasibility study and help him/her to meet timelines?
• Is a recruitment plan proposed with strategies likely to attract high-quality Scholars?
• Are there well-defined and well-justified recruitment and selection strategies?
• Is there evidence of a sufficiently large, competitive Scholar pool to warrant the proposed size of the career development program?
• Are the content, phasing and proposed duration of the career development plan appropriate for achieving scientific independence of the Scholars?
• What is the likelihood that the career development plan will contribute significantly to the scientific development of the Scholars?
• Does the plan for selection of the Scholar include all the eligibility criteria stated in the NOFO?
• Do prospective Scholars have the potential to organize, manage, and implement the proposed clinical trial, feasibility or ancillary study?
• Are there plans to providing instruction in data management and statistics including those relevant to clinical trials to the prospective Scholars?

Training Record

• Is there evidence of a successful past training record of the PD/PI and mentors, including the success of former Scholars in seeking independent support and establishing productive scientific careers? 
• Does the program have a rigorous evaluation plan to assess the quality and effectiveness of the training and career development?

Protections for Human Subjects

Generally not applicable. Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific Review Officer.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan

Vertebrate Animals

Career Development in Methods for Enhancing Reproducibility

Does the plan for Instruction in Methods for Enhancing Reproducibility describe how the program will provide career development in scientific reasoning, rigorous research design, relevant experimental methods, consideration of relevant biological variables such as sex, authentication of key biological and/or chemical resources, quantitative approaches, and data analysis and interpretation, appropriate to field of study and the level and prior preparation of the scholars?

Resubmissions

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.

• Has the career development program successfully achieved its stated objectives during the prior project period?
• Has the program been of high quality and effective in developing new independent investigators?
• Has the program been innovative in the past and does it continue to demonstrate innovation?
• Has the program been adequately evaluated and has the level of success been satisfactory?
• Do the results of the evaluation document show a continued need for support for this program?
• Is the approach for the next project period responsive to the results of the program's evaluation?  

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity

Peer reviewers will separately evaluate the recruitment plan to enhance diversity after the overall score has been determined. Reviewers will examine the strategies to be used in the recruitment of prospective individuals from underrepresented groups. The plan will be rated as ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE , and the consensus of the review committee will be included in an administrative note in the summary statement.

Applicants are required to submit a Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity. New applications must include such a plan and may wish to include data in support of past accomplishments.

Renewal applications also must include a detailed account of experiences in recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups during the previous funding period. Information must be included on successful and unsuccessful recruitment strategies and how the proposed plan reflects the program's past experiences in recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups.

Applications without a Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity will be considered incomplete and will not be reviewed.

The review panel's evaluation will generally be included in an administrative note in the summary statement. If the Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity is judged to be unacceptable, funding will be withheld until a revised plan (and report) that addresses the deficiencies is received. Staff within the NIH IC, with guidance from its National Advisory Council or Board, will determine whether amended plans and reports submitted after the initial review are acceptable.

Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research

All applications for support under this NOFO must include a plan to fulfill NIH requirements for instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Taking into account the specific characteristics of the career development program, the level of scholar experience, and the particular circumstances of the scholars, the reviewers will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed RCR career development in relation to the following five required components: 1) Format - Does the plan satisfactorily address the format of instruction, e.g., lectures, coursework and/or real-time discussion groups, including face-to-face interaction? ( A plan involving only on-line instruction is not acceptable. ); 2) Subject Matter – Does the plan include a sufficiently broad selection of subject matter, such as conflict of interest, authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety, research misconduct, research ethics? 3) Faculty Participation - Does the plan adequately describe how faculty will participate in the instruction? For renewal applications, are all career development faculty who served as course directors, speakers, lecturers, and/or discussion leaders during the past project period named in the application? 4) Duration of Instruction - Does the plan meet the minimum requirements for RCR, i.e., at least eight contact hours of instruction? 5) Frequency of Instruction – Does the plan meet the minimum requirements for RCR, i.e., at least once during each career stage (undergraduate, post-baccalaureate, predoctoral, postdoctoral, and faculty levels) and at a frequency of no less than once every four years?

For renewal applications, does the progress report document acceptable RCR instruction in the five components described above? Does the plan describe how participation in RCR instruction is being monitored? Are appropriate changes in the plan for RCR instruction proposed in response to feedback and in response to evolving issues related to responsible conduct of research?

Plans and past record will be rated as ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE , and the summary statement will provide the consensus of the review committee.

Select Agent Research

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Budget and Period of Support

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), convened by NCI in accordance with NIH peer review policies and practices , using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:

• May undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
• Will receive a written critique.

Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Cancer Advisory Board. 

Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board.

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access their Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons . Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.4.4 Disposition of Applications .

Section VI. Award Administration Information

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . This request is not a Notice of Award nor should it be construed to be an indicator of possible funding. 

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient’s business official.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this NOFO will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.

ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain “applicable clinical trials” on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website ( https://register.clinicaltrials.gov ). NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).

Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the  NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General  and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities , including of note, but not limited to:

• Federal-wide Standard Terms and Conditions for Research Grants
• Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
• Acknowledgment of Federal Funding

If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

If a recipient receives an award, the recipient must follow all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The recipient agrees to this when registering in SAM.gov. The recipient must also submit an Assurance of Compliance ( HHS-690 ). To learn more, see the Laws and Regulations Enforced by the HHS Office for Civil Rights website .

HHS recognizes that NIH research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to System for Award Management (SAM.gov) requirements. SAM.gov requires Federal agencies to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently SAM.gov) prior to making an award. An applicant can review and comment on any information in the responsibility/qualification records available in SAM.gov. NIH will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the information available in the responsibility/qualification records in SAM.gov, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR Part 200.206 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.” This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

Not Applicable.

Consistent with the 2023 NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Not Applicable for institutional training awards.

When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. . Continuation support will not be provided until the required forms are submitted and accepted.

Failure by the recipient institution to submit required forms in a timely, complete, and accurate manner may result in an expenditure disallowance or a delay in any continuation funding for the award.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as amended (FFATA), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreementsare required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

• The institution must submit a completed Statement of Appointment ( PHS Form 2271 ) for each Scholar appointed or reappointed to the career development award for 8 weeks or more. Grantees must submit the PHS 2271 data electronically using the xTrain system. More information on xTrain is available at  xTrain (eRA Commons) . An appointment or reappointment may begin any time during the budget period, but not before the budget period start date of the grant year.
• A notarized statement verifying possession of permanent residency documentation must be submitted with the Statement of Appointment ( PHS Form 2271 ). Individuals with a Conditional Permanent Resident status must first meet full (non-conditional) Permanent Residency requirements before receiving support.
• Termination Notice: Within 30 days of the end of the total support period, the institution must submit a Termination Notice ( PHS Form 416-7 ) via  xTrain for each Scholar appointed for eight weeks or more.
• Progress reports (RPPRs) should provide information on all Scholars for the present grant year as instructed plus:
• Institutional status (Asst. Prof.; Instructor; Fellow; etc.)
• Dates of start/end in the program
• RPPRs should also include the Trainee Diversity Report as described in the NIH Guide Notice  NOT-OD-20-178 .

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award as described in the  NIH Grants Policy Statement . Evaluation results should be included as part of the final RPPR.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period.  The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS).  This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313).  As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available.  Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200 – Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

In carrying out its stewardship of human resource-related programs, the NIH may request information essential to an assessment of the effectiveness of this program from databases and from participants themselves. Participants may be contacted after the completion of this award for periodic updates on various aspects of their employment history, publications, support from research grants or contracts, honors and awards, professional activities, and other information helpful in evaluating the impact of the program.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten on-time submission, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online:  https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help  (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application processes and NIH grant resources) Email:  [email protected]  (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-637-3015

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace) Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726 Email:  [email protected]

Yansong Bian, MD, PhD National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone: 240-276-5630 Email: [email protected]

Referral Officer National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone 301-496-3428 Email:  [email protected]  

Amy Bartosch National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone: 240-276-6375  Email:  [email protected]  

Section VIII. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts . All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75.

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files .

Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

Información en español

Celebrating 75 Years! Learn More >>

• About the Director
• Advisory Boards and Groups
• Strategic Plan
• Offices and Divisions
• Careers at NIMH
• Staff Directories
• Getting to NIMH

Job Vacancy Announcement - Health Scientist Administrator (Program Officer) - Office of Research Training and Career Development (ORTCD)

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Division of Translational Research (DTR)  

Program Overview

The Division of Translational Research (DTR) at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) directs, plans, and supports programs of research that translate knowledge from basic science to discover the etiology, pathophysiology, and trajectory of mental disorders and develop effective interventions for children and adults. The Division, located in Rockville, MD is looking for a motivated individual to serve as a Program Officer to guide research training programs relating to adult psychopathology in the Office of Research Training and Career Development. The Office fosters the training of new investigators and enhances the career development of translational scientists through individual fellowship, career development, research education, and institutional research training grants.

Position Duties

The Program Officer in the Office of Research Training and Career Development serves as a program expert for the research education and training of individuals in the areas of adult psychopathology related translational research. The Program Officer will be expected to provide scientific and programmatic guidance and support to investigators in the early stages of their research careers who are conducting research in fields relevant to the advancement of DTR’s research mission. Responsibilities will include administering and managing an extramural portfolio of research training, education, and career development awards and developing new funding opportunities. The Program Officer will also be expected to interact with researchers in the scientific community and with program officers at NIMH, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other federal agencies, as appropriate.

Qualifications

Applicants must be U.S. citizens and have successfully completed a bachelor’s and graduate/higher level degree with major study in an academic field related to the medical field, health sciences, or allied sciences appropriate to the work of the position from an accredited college or university.

This position requires working both independently and collaboratively. Strong organizational, oral, written, and communication skills are also required. Experience managing research programs is also desirable. Successful candidates are subject to a background investigation and public financial disclosure requirements.

A complete federal civil service benefits package includes retirement, health and life insurance, leave, and a Thrift Savings Plan (401K equivalent).  https://hr.nih.gov/benefits    Salaries are competitive and commensurate with experience.

How to Apply

A global Health Scientist Administrator (Program Officer) announcement will be available through  www.usajobs.gov    opening May 13, 2024 and closing May 22, 2024 .

Candidates must apply through USAJOBS:  USAJOBS - The Federal Government's official employment site    Interested applicants are strongly encouraged to also send a letter of interest and curriculum vitae to  [email protected] .

Please set up notifications via USAJOBS for future announcements that fit your criteria. Visit the NIH Federal Resume Tips website for guidance on creating a federal resume at  https://hr.nih.gov/jobs/how-apply/tips-writing-federal-resume  .

HHS and NIH are equal-opportunity employers.

The NIH encourages the application and nomination of qualified women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities. HHS and NIH are equal-opportunity employers.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about moms in the U.S.

The experience of being a mom in the United States has changed over the last few decades as more women attend college , delay motherhood and stay in the labor force after their children are born . Still, working mothers typically take on more caregiving responsibilities at home than fathers do – and this was especially true during the coronavirus pandemic .

For Mother’s Day, here’s a snapshot of what motherhood looks like in the U.S. today, drawn from government data and Pew Research Center surveys.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis ahead of Mother’s Day 2023 to provide a snapshot of the demographics and experiences of mothers in the United States. The analysis is based on government data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ American Time Use Survey , as well as survey data from the Center. Links to the methodology and questions of Center surveys and analyses can be found in the text of the analysis.

White, Black and Asian adults include only those who are not Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race.

Moms’ average age at first birth in the U.S. has ticked up steadily over the last decade. In 2021, the average woman gave birth for the first time at 27.3 years old, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This was up from 2011, when the average mom was 25.6 at the birth of her first child.

While mothers’ average age at first birth has risen across racial and ethnic groups, some differences exist among them. In 2021, Black and Hispanic moms, on average, were younger at the birth of their first child (25.5 years for both groups) than White (28.1) and Asian moms (31.2). American Indian or Alaska Native first-time mothers were the youngest, on average (23.9).

The number of children women in the U.S. have in their lifetime has declined over time, Census Bureau data shows. In the late 1970s, women at the end of their childbearing years (ages 40 to 44) had, on average, more than three children. In 2020, women had about two children on average – a number that has been fairly stable for more than two decades . Most of this decline occurred between 1976 and the mid-1990s.

Women with more education have fewer children on average in their lifetimes. For instance, between 1976 and 2022, women ages 40 to 44 with at least a bachelor’s degree had an average of 1.75 children, while women who do not have a high school diploma had, on average, 2.99 children.

Moms spend more time with their children than dads do – especially when their children are young, data from the 2021 American Time Use Survey shows . During waking hours, mothers with children under 6 spent 7.5 hours on child care per day on average, while dads spent 5.3 hours.

While with their young children, these moms spent 2.7 hours per day on caregiving tasks. Fathers spent 1.6 hours per day on caregiving activities.

Moms with children ages 6 to 12 reported spending an average of 5.7 hours per day on child care, while dads logged 4.2 hours. Mothers with teens ages 13 to 17 also spent more time doing this than fathers did (3.8 hours vs. 3 hours).

In opposite-sex couples, mothers report taking on more child care responsibilities than their spouse or partner does, while fathers are more likely to say these tasks are split about equally, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted fall 2022 .

Among moms who are married to or living with a partner, majorities with children under 18 say they do more when it comes to managing their children’s schedules and activities (78%) and providing comfort or emotional support to their children (58%). A majority (65%) of moms with school-age kids say they do more than their partner to help their children with homework or other school assignments. And 57% of moms with children under 5 say they do more to meet their children’s basic needs, such as feeding, bathing or changing diapers.

Consistent with  past surveys , perceptions of who takes on more child care responsibilities differ by gender among married and cohabiting parents in opposite-sex relationships.

Previous research has found that working mothers are more likely to  carry greater household  and  caregiving loads , and many of the duties mothers take on in family life became even more  difficult in the COVID-19 pandemic .

Moms are more likely than dads to say being a parent is harder than they expected, the fall 2022 survey found. Around two-thirds of mothers (66%) and a smaller majority of fathers (58%) say being a parent is a lot or somewhat harder than they thought it would be. That includes 30% of moms and 20% of dads who say it is a lot harder than they expected.

Larger shares of moms than dads also say they find being a parent tiring (47% vs. 34%) and stressful (33% vs. 24%) all or most of the time.

The vast majority of mothers find parenting enjoyable and rewarding, the same survey found. Overall, 83% of moms say that being a parent is enjoyable for them most (56%) or all of the time (27%). Eight-in-ten moms say being a parent is rewarding most or all of the time, with 37% saying this is the case all of the time.

Being a parent is a key part of most moms’ personal identity, according to the fall 2022 survey. The vast majority of mothers (88%) say that being a parent is the most or one of the most important aspects of who they are as a person, with about a third (35%) saying it is the most important aspect. While a similarly large share of fathers (85%) say that being a parent ranks among the most important aspects of who they are, they are less likely than mothers to say it is the most important: 24% say this.

Note: This is an update to a post originally published on May 8, 2019.

• Family & Relationships
• Household Structure & Family Roles
• Motherhood & Fatherhood

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

Carolina Aragão is a research associate focusing on social and demographic trends at Pew Research Center

Few East Asian adults believe women have an obligation to society to have children

Among parents with young adult children, some dads feel less connected to their kids than moms do, how teens and parents approach screen time, most east asian adults say men and women should share financial and caregiving duties, among young adults without children, men are more likely than women to say they want to be parents someday, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Gaming executive commits $1M to UNLV career development program for women's sports

by Matthew Seeman

LAS VEGAS (KSNV) — A gaming executive has committed over $1 million to help launch a new career development program at UNLV for women student-athletes.

Paragon Gaming CEO Diana Bennett's donation will go toward creating the new initiative, which is set to launch this coming fall semester, UNLV announced Wednesday.

The Dianna Bennett Career Development Program for Women's Sports will provide internship programming, resume-building, networking, job shadowing, externship programs, skills training, etiquette training and more.

MORE ON NEWS 3 | UNLV star Desi-Rae Young signs training camp contract with Phoenix Mercury

"At UNLV, we're committed to the success of our student-athletes both in competition and in life, and this generous gift will support programs and facilities to build crucial skills in areas that will benefit our female student-athletes throughout their professional careers," UNLV President Keith E. Whitfield said in a statement.

In a statement, Bennett said the program's goal is to provide student-athletes with the tools to ensure lasting careers as both athletes and professionals.

"These student-athletes consistently dedicate much of their energy and time during pre and post-secondary to becoming leaders in their sport," she said. "However, we see time and time again that career opportunities in the sports industry are limited for females."

Bennett co-founded Paragon Gaming and serves on the UNLV Foundation Board of Trustees. She is also the daughter of William G. Bennett, the founder of Circus Circus Enterprises and former owner of the Sahara.