Confronting the ideal worker myth to better support efforts towards gender equity: recommendations for a post-pandemic workforce

ABSTRACT

Gender inequity is an ongoing issue that organizations and society have failed to address fully. The (stalled) gender revolution is multidimensional and complex, and the ‘ideal worker myth’ – the outdated belief that the ‘ideal worker’ can put work above all else in their life – is one such factor that perpetuates gender inequity at work. We use this article as a space to contribute to the conversation around gender equity and the myth of the ideal worker, especially in response to challenges highlighted during and since the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a crucial time at which the ideal worker should be subverted, as women’s participation in the paid workforce was undermined by pandemic-related issues, perhaps even moving the gender revolution backward. Here, we provide an overview of these topics to orient our readers, and we recommend remedying these issues using an intersectional feminist approach in both research and practice. Our actionable recommendations are the crux of this article and are designed to promote gender equity and end the myth of the ideal worker once and for all.

KEYWORDS:

• Ideal worker
• gender equity
• feminism
• intersectionality
• post-pandemic workforce

If there was ever a time to put to rest the old-fashioned notion of the ideal worker, it’s now. Post-pandemic, let’s resculpt workplace ideals so they reflect people’s lives today – not half a century ago. – Williams (2020)

Gender inequity is persistent, marked by the stalled revolution for women’s social, economic, and political equality (England, 2010). Gender inequity is the result of treating workers differently and unfairly based on their gender identity (c.f., Hing et al., 2023). Equality focuses on comparable distributions (e.g. standard amounts of paid leave), and equity centers on comparable outcomes through need-based distributions (e.g., paid leave for life circumstances, such as parental leave, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, AECF, 2014). In other words, equality is concerned with providing the same means, resources, or opportunities to everyone, and equity is defined by allocating means, resources, and opportunities to individuals based on their needs and circumstances so that equal outcomes can be attained (e.g., AECF, 2014). Our Voices article focuses on gender inequity, though equity and equality are clearly interdependent.

Among the factors preventing gender equity at work is the ideal worker myth¹: the belief that the ‘ideal’ worker puts work above all else and keeps life out of work (e.g., Acker, 1990). As promising as this employee may seem, he is outdated and does not exist (Peters & Blomme, 2019). Regardless of one’s sex or gender identity and expression, all workers have a life outside of work that will, at times, take precedence over work. These idealized expectations shape decision-making in organizations and reinforce inequitable dynamics (i.e., ‘inequality regimes,’ Acker, 2006) in and outside the labor market that permits assumptions to become truths. Overall, the ideal worker myth prevents lasting, meaningful change for the workforce by constraining – and directly opposing – gender equity.

Research has highlighted the relationship between gender inequity and the ideal worker myth (e.g., Acker, 1990; Kossek et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2013, 2016), and implications from the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how far we are from achieving gender equity (Goldin, 2021). Here, we continue this discussion (see, for example, Edwards, 2020; Foley & Cooper, 2021; Heggeness et al., 2021) by tying together the ideal worker myth, gender inequity, and pandemic-related implications for women’s work. We add to the efforts to subvert the ideal worker myth – which persists despite our growing understanding of the influence of the ideal worker myth on work and well-being (e.g. Kossek et al., 2020; Williams, 2020; Zanhour & Sumpter, 2022) – by underscoring its mythical nature. Thus, the aims of this Voices article are to (1) to summarize the discourse around the ideal worker myth and gender inequity, including pandemic-related implications for working women; and (2) drawing from intersectional feminism, we provide actionable recommendations for theory and practice (Figure 1). The crux of our paper is our ‘call to action’ (Table 1) provided to those engaged in the fight for gender equity and those who have yet to join.

Figure 1. Framework of gender inequity, the ideal worker myth, and proposed solution.

Table 1. Summary of the ideal worker myth and gender inequity.

Topic	Take-Home Point	Call to Action
Ideal Worker Myth and Gender Inequity	The idea that workers do not have a life outside of work, or can be wholly devoted to their work life at all times, is outdated and perpetuates gender inequity	Begin to challenge the ideal worker myth in your own relationship with work and your workplace
Pandemic-Related Implications	Continuing to undervalue unpaid work, while simultaneously valuing paid work, does little to support gender equity. Strains relating to paid and unpaid labor perpetuate inequities within the workforce for women	Consider the implications for valuing, economically and socially, women’s work. Consider both paid and unpaid labor as work that all individuals can and should engage in, regardless of gender, so that the workforce of the future can truly support gender equity
Intersectional Feminism and Gender Equity	Gender inequity harms all workers, not just women. Intersectional feminism champions the belief that all people should be valued, and all aspects of identity must be considered when addressing inequity	Consider the multiple identities that people hold and how each one of these identities can be a source of fulfillment and source of stigma, discrimination, and inequity (e.g. ‘mother’ identity as fulfilling and a source of discrimination)
Diversity and Representation	The ideal worker myth upholds a narrow concept of a valuable employee, but the global workforce is and needs to be diverse	Recognize that all workers bring relevant knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics to their jobs that contribute to the functioning of an organization

To support our aims, we use a perspective based in feminism, which is ‘a struggle to end sexist oppression’ (hooks, 2000a, p. 26) that advocates for economic, social, and political equality for all. Specifically, we use an intersectional feminist perspective (e.g., Crenshaw, 1991; see also Combahee River Collective, 1995), which examines the interplay between various identities and the (in)equitable experiences associated with holding these identities (e.g., Holvino, 2010; Rosette et al., 2018). This perspective permits us to consider limitations to the gender binary (e.g., men versus women), issues with ‘gender-neutral’ thinking, and interactions between gender and other privileged or marginalized identities. Indeed, while we focus on women’s experiences, we define ‘women’ broadly and inclusively. Gender minorities (e.g., women, nonbinary folks) are oppressed by patriarchal ideology such as the ideal worker myth, yet men, too, experience harm therefrom (e.g., Coron & Garbe, 2023; hooks, 2004; Padavic et al., 2020). This makes it all the more paramount that the ideal worker myth be dismantled: whether unwittingly playing part in a harmful system or bearing the brunt of its consequences, we all suffer in a world that idealizes an impossible prototype.

This orientation is a strength of our work, as we provide an integrative and timely perspective on an oft-debated topic (the ideal worker). Spanning multiple literatures and grounded in systems, identity, and recent events, we describe the ideal worker myth’s current role in undermining gender equity and present a multifaceted, implementable plan for its dissolution. We diverge from others writing on this topic by specifically and explicitly discussing gender equity as unattainable within the context of the ideal worker and, therefore, calling for its end rather than its evolution (e.g., Williamson et al., 2023). Indeed, worker idealization and prototyping, as the theory and literature synthesized herein suggests, are gendered and exclusive; unpacking and rewriting these narratives, through some of the actionable steps we suggest and others that we hope to inspire, will pave the way towards gender equity.

At this point, we must note that we are limited by our positionality: our author team is composed of women and nonbinary academics in the U.S. We are shaped by these lenses and experiences in approaching the topics covered here, which adds nuance, richness, and experience to our analysis while shaping the flow of our narrative, arguments, and examples. The scope of our paper is intended to be broad (particularly given the incidence and study of the ideal worker myth globally, e.g., Kuwait, Al-Asfahani et al., 2024; South Africa, April et al., 2007; Mexico, Brumley, 2014; France, Coron & Garbe, 2023; Australia, Williamson et al., 2023), and we aimed to be as reflexive as possible in crafting our work. Our synthesis and ideas are not exhaustive and should be interpreted and applied with our, and our readers’ own, contexts and identities in mind. With this established, we explore the ideal worker and its relationship to gender inequity next.

The ideal worker myth and gender inequity

The ideal worker is a relic of a meritocratic myth suggesting that one will be rewarded if they work harder, minimize their family involvement, and wholly prioritize work. And yet, all workers suffer under the ideal worker myth. There is evidence to suggest that men suffer under the ideal worker myth (Coron & Garbe, 2023), including documented stigma that may inhibit men from mentioning their family and caretaking responsibilities at work, as these activities are often viewed to be incongruent with masculinity and virility (Williams et al., 2013). Using workplace policies, including flexible work, may come with unintended consequences for workers (Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011; Rudman & Mescher, 2013), and ‘[flexibility] programs have not come close to dislodging the norm of the ideal worker who receives the backstage support of a stay-at-home wife’ (Williams et al., 2013, p. 210). Women are pressured to conceal personal experiences (e.g., menopause) to meet ideal worker expectations (Grandey et al., 2020), and women of childbearing age are viewed less favorably based on the assumption that they may, one day, be involved in a parental role (Gloor et al., 2021). Beliefs in myths about women’s involvement in parenting (e.g., that children and families suffer when mothers work) may even underlie individuals’ opposition to women’s career pursuits following birth, with evidence to suggest that discrimination justification may be particularly pronounced in countries that promote gender equality (Verniers & Vala, 2018). Thus, women’s attempts to embody the ideal worker conflict with their identities, roles, and physical bodies. Particularly in the context of a post-pandemic workforce, it is critical to end the perpetuation of gender inequity by confronting the ideal worker myth; next, we explore why this timing is particularly important.

Pandemic-Related implications

Several outdated structures and systems were highlighted during the pandemic (e.g., Amis et al., 2021; Ledgerwood et al., 2022), and Goldin (2021) writes that ‘we are just now collectively waking up to a set of [gender-related] problems that have always existed’ (p. 10). One problem persisting in the U.S. is the gender pay gap: women earn a little above 80% of what men earn (Jones, 2021). Before the pandemic, it was estimated that it may take a century for the gender pay gap to subside (Verniers & Vala, 2018), and pandemic-related implications (e.g., job loss) have ‘set women’s labor force participation back more than 30 years’ (Jones, 2021). During the pandemic, women were more likely than men to experience job loss (Dang & Nguyen, 2021), and women of color were most negatively impacted by pandemic-related job insecurity and loss (Alon et al., 2020). Some changes in women’s employment were related to constraints on childcare and unpaid responsibilities (Powell, 2020; Power, 2020), further contributing to the economic disparity between men and women.

Pandemic-related implications for women affected many aspects of work and life (Fisher & Ryan, 2021). Flexible work arrangements received growing support (Thier, 2022), yet the implications of flexible work arrangements may depend on their availability (i.e., positive outcomes) and the actual implementation of these policies (i.e., negative outcomes, e.g., Kossek et al., 2023). As we have already noted, working flexibly can be related to unintended backlash (e.g., Rudman & Mescher, 2013). Working flexibly was unsustainable for women during the pandemic (Çoban, 2022) and was especially challenging for mothers and caregivers (Yavorsky et al., 2021). During the pandemic, women also experienced increased role conflict (Adisa et al., 2021), poor mental health (Borrescio-Higa & Valenzuela, 2021), including burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder (Jefferson et al., 2022), and decreased access to physical healthcare (Guerrina et al., 2021). Troublingly, these implications disproportionately impacted marginalized groups (Blell et al., 2023; Kantamneni, 2020). We must heed these warnings to progress towards a workforce that rejects the ideal worker myth and truly supports gender equity. Intersectional feminism provides direction for such progress.

Intersectional feminism and gender equity

Intersectional feminism suggests that gender equity is not achieved by shedding gendered identities or conforming to masculine roles (e.g., hooks, 2000b; Kaufmann & Derry, 2023; O’Reilly, 2021; Sawyer et al., 2013). Instead, intersectional feminism directs attention within and across various spheres of society, highlighting where segregation, hierarchical organization, control systems, power dynamics, and other modes and mechanisms mutually support discrimination and differentiation based on identity (Acker, 2006). By adopting an intersectional feminist perspective to support a greater understanding of diversity and equity at work (e.g., Sawyer et al., 2013), we can recognize how organizations are structured to prioritize, protect, and propagate some interests while oppressing others (e.g., Crenshaw, 1991).

Intersectional feminism promotes the recognition of variety and nuance in identities, group memberships, and experiences; it allows us to interrogate marginalization and ‘othering’ processes while empowering other ways of thinking, being, and resisting (Walsh, 2015). In essence, it allows one to understand that inequity can stem from the multiple identities that one holds rather than one identity in isolation. Under conditions of pre-existing disadvantage (e.g., as a function of gender), promoting equity allows for equal outcomes to be attained (AECF, 2014). Inequity, then, is rectified through taking stock of diversity and identity within our systems and inclusively pursuing equity for all. By requiring the explicit discussion of gender and intersecting forms of diversity via multiple identities, differences are highlighted in the service of both individual empowerment and structural change. Such explicit, intersectional consideration of the ideal worker is necessary, particularly at this post-pandemic juncture.

Diversity and representation

Deconstructing, understanding, and reimagining what it means to be a ‘working woman’ requires the intersectional consideration of multiple identities. This means taking stock of the experiences of women and the additional identities they hold (e.g., gender and race and socioeconomic status). Fundamentally, intersectional feminism asserts that discrimination, marginalization, and harm are not a product of a single identity (i.e., gender), and gender equity is attainable by systematically addressing all forms of oppression. If, overall, women cannot be seen as ideal workers, then this is even less plausible for women who are marginalized beyond their gender. Therefore, we must attend to and represent workers’ experiences as a function of gender and other intersecting identities in our research, practice, and policy (Acker, 2012).

Women in low-paying jobs, women of color, queer women, women with disabilities, and gender nonconforming individuals (including those who may be feminine-presenting or assigned female at birth) are but a few of the populations that diverge from the ideal worker myth in ways worth exploring (e.g., Foster & Wass, 2013; O’Hagan, 2018). To illustrate this point, we cannot expect to achieve gender equity in societies that undervalue caregiving (England, 2010) and contribute to a ‘hand me down’ of unpaid labor (Hochschild & Machung, 2012, p. 269). This means that, for those who can afford it, nonwork responsibilities (e.g., childcare, housekeeping) are outsourced to low-income workers, particularly women. However, these women are less likely to receive support for their own needs: 44% of U.S. employees are not eligible to access the Family and Medical Leave Act (Brown et al., 2020), which is unpaid, meaning that those who are eligible may be financially unable to use this policy (Cai & Appelbaum, 2021).

Gender-diverse workers and workers with intersectional identities are underrepresented in our literature and, thereby, in our knowledge about and conceptualization of (ideal) workers (c.f., Duffy et al., 2016). What’s more, whether exacerbated or exposed by pandemic-related implications, women and workers identifying with additional marginalized groups face a constellation of risks and disparities, such as mistreatment, harassment, discrimination wage inequity, differential policy access, and/or unsafe or unaccommodating work (Berkhout & Richardson, 2020; Laster Pirtle & Wright, 2021; Okechukwu et al., 2014). Centering on these populations in intersectional research and practice will aid in addressing such risks and disparities. It will also help subvert the ideal worker myth and gender inequity more broadly; building upon our synthesis, we present recommendations for this aim next.

Looking to the future: subverting the ideal worker myth

There are many factors to consider when understanding the persistence of gender inequity at work, such as the devaluation of unpaid and caregiving work, which tends to be done by women (England, 2010), and work-family narratives that focus on women rather than all individuals with nonwork responsibilities (Padavic et al., 2020). We focus exclusively on the ideal worker myth, as it is stubbornly persistent even in light of the COVID-19 pandemic’s implications for work (e.g., Al-Asfahani et al., 2024; Williams, 2020; Zanhour & Sumpter, 2022). We add to the growing literature on addressing gender inequity in light of the pandemic (c.f., Amis et al., 2021; Bapuji et al., 2020; Foley & Cooper, 2021; Wenham et al., 2020). We maintain that these efforts will be successful when the ideal worker is demystified. Here, we provide recommendations to subvert the ideal worker myth for scholars and practitioners to implement (see Table 2). These recommendations stem from our understanding of the ideal worker myth, intersectional feminism, and diversity, equity, and inclusion frameworks. We hope these recommendations serve as initial guideposts to get the field moving towards a post-ideal worker myth world; we recognize that this list is not exhaustive, and we look forward to seeing additional directions scholars and practitioners initiate beyond our recommendations.

Table 2. Recommendations for theory and practice: a how-to guide for subverting the ideal worker myth.

Future Direction	Implication	Actionable Recommendation
Integrate Feminist and Management Scholarship	Consider how gendered organization theory, intersectionality, etc. applies to the post-pandemic workplace	Question: How can gendered organization theory be tested and developed given pandemic-related challenges? Action: Integrate feminist and management theories
Confront the Business Case and ‘Bottom Line’ Mentality	Having a workforce of ‘ideal workers’ may not help the bottom line as much as one thinks	Question: Are ‘ideal workers’ more productive than ‘non-ideal workers’? Action: Consider the impact on the bottom line that the ideal worker myth has, including possible negative outcomes (e.g., increased turnover, presenteeism)
Recognize and Challenge the Ideal Worker Myth in the Workplace and in Teaching	Look for signs or characteristics of the ideal worker myth in clients and stakeholders	Question: Could issues with the client be attributable to the assumption that workers should be ‘ideal workers’? Action: Address qualities of the ideal worker myth in organizations
Use Coaching and Identity Work	Contemplate and example the roles and identities that are held and cherished	Question: What identities do clients have in addition to their work identity? Action: Consider coaching and identity work as a piece of client-facing tools
Adopt Gender-Equitable Policies and Practices	Ensure that policies and practices do not create or add to gender inequity, including backlash / career penalties	Question: Do workers feel compelled to work more because of this practice, and does that harm efforts towards gender equity? Action: Critically examine the policies and practices adopted by organizations, including which policies and practices are adopted versus used

Recommendation for theory 1: integrate feminist and management scholarship

Integrating feminist and management scholarships is our first recommendation for theory. Gender equity is studied within management (though feminsm is not widely considered relevant in business schools, Sang & Glasgow, 2016) and feminist research, yet much of the work on this topic from each area is conducted in isolation from the other areas. The orthogonal nature of these lines of research, thus far, limits the progression of gender equity research and advocacy. There are examples of research that has bridged this gap; for example, Gabriel et al. (2020) provide social context-centered studies of the experiences of breastfeeding mothers at work, while Grandey et al. (2020) review what is known about experiences that define different stages of women’s careers (i.e., menstruation, maternity, and menopause), considering the interplay between female bodies, societal expectations, and work that contribute to gender disparities. Additional work from Mauthner and Edwards (2010) explores the challenges associated with feminist approaches to management in academic cultures, highlighting the systems that have historically constrained not only what we study but also how we collaborate to study it. Each of these examples substantively considers management through or with a feminist lens, and we call for more work in the organizational sciences infused with this orientation.

Indeed, integrating feminist theories with management theories can help build a more holistic perspective on how to promote gender equity. Gendered organization theory (Acker, 1990) offers a helpful perspective for management research to incorporate when considering gender equity in the post-pandemic workplace, as highlighted here. Within this view, organizations are a crucial context in which gendered expectations are enacted – making organizations a critical component of gender equity reform. Matricentric feminism, which embraces intersectionality by suggesting that the role of ‘mother’ has challenges that are unique beyond the challenges of ‘women’ or ‘parents’ individually (O’Reilly, 2021), is another example of feminist theory that is relevant for workplace gender equity.

Recommendation for theory 2: confront the business case and ‘Bottom line’ mentality

Our second recommendation for theory is to explore the business case for gender equity, which could reinforce its economic value. Research on work-nonwork policies and the bottom line is scant, yet ‘the lack of strong ‘business case’ evidence is worrisome because organizations may decide to back away from work-family policies and initiatives if the ROI evidence is not clear’ (Kelly et al., 2008, p. 14). Leaders are central to making work-nonwork policies and cultural change benefit employees and organizations, and future research must examine the leadership qualities associated with achieving a successful double-bottom line (i.e. fiscal success and employee well-being, Rowley et al., 2021). Williams et al. (2016) also note that measuring bottom-line outcomes does not need to only focus on what happens when women leave the organization but also consider the ‘costs imposed by treating work as a forum for moral, gender, and class identity contests’ (p. 531).

Nevertheless, the bottom line should not be used as the sole rationale for women’s involvement in equitable work. In fact, there are strong arguments for going beyond bottom-line mentality (Kaplan, 2020; Kaufmann & Derry, 2023). For example, Ely and Thomas (2020) state that ‘we are disturbed by the implication that there must be economic grounds to justify investing in people from underrepresented groups’ (p.122). Thus, we suggest that future research should ask questions such as: How does the perpetuation of the ideal worker myth impact a company’s diversity, recruitment, and retention efforts? and, How can gender equity initiatives support organizational financial success? But also, What are the economic and social costs of gender inequity?

Recommendation for practice 1: identify the ideal worker myth in practice

The collective social awakening to gendered issues via challenges provoked by the pandemic creates an opportunity for change (Wenham et al., 2020), and we encourage practitioners, armed with an understanding of the meaning and consequences of the ideal worker myth, to help loosen the grip of the ideal worker myth on organizations. Future cohorts of scholars and practitioners must understand the harms of the ideal worker myth, its incompatibility with the modern workplace, and how it perpetuates gender inequity. Women are historically portrayed in management texts as ‘a problem to be managed’ (Williams & Mills, 2019, p. 162), and women are incompatible with current representations of and theories about leadership (Arnold & Loughlin, 2019). These views provide flawed representations of women in academic textbooks, theories, and research. As our first recommendation for practice, we encourage practitioners to be aware of these myths and to consider that ‘work does not liberate women from male domination’ (hooks, 2000b, p. 49). Simply having women in the workforce will not yield gender equity; Challenging the incongruent beliefs that workplaces have regarding women (e.g., being unfit for leadership) is a necessary first step (Arnold & Loughlin, 2019).

This is also crucial to address in the workplace with stakeholders who may be invested in diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts or those who develop and implement work-nonwork policies and practices. We argue, as have others (e.g., Williams et al., 2016), that the core false belief originates with the ideal worker myth. Practitioners can examine the ideal worker myth in their workplaces and consider diverse nonwork responsibilities when building diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The data collected from these efforts could be a first step in forming the narrative around why change is necessary and getting leadership buy-in (Cameron, 2008).

Recommendation for practice 2: use coaching and identity work

As our second recommendation for practice, we suggest the use of coaching and identity work. The ideal worker myth is compatible with one identity: the worker. Individuals can derive part of their identities from their work (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989), yet other components of their identities are important and relevant. Understanding identities, through coaching and identity work (i.e., working with coaches to understand how personal and professional identities shape who we are and our roles in society), could help practitioners identify why and how the ideal worker myth persists (e.g., as the sole identity of workers) and how to challenge it (e.g. coach individuals to see the value of multiple identities). As stated by Williams et al. (2016), ‘Any proposal to redefine work is profoundly threatening to people whose identities have been forged around the old way of doing it’ (p. 532). This has been apparent in intervention studies: Kelly et al. (2010) noted that ‘[t]he risk of the gendered and uneven response to [results only work environment] is that (some) men’s caution may stymie the change in the overall culture, reinforcing the ideal worker norm as they enact hegemonic masculinity’ (p. 298).

Through identity work, practitioners may better understand resistance to change. Scholars and practitioners could also benefit from strategies such as coaching to highlight the multiple identities people use to subjectively define themselves (Ramarajan, 2014). For example, Yip et al. (2020) provide recommendations for coaching new leaders via narrative work, such as modifying the stories that an individual tells themselves about their multiple identities. This approach also permits a tangible application of intersectionality to the workplace, facilitating individuals’ consideration and processing of interlocking identities, (dis)empowerment, and privilege (or lack thereof; Crenshaw, 1991).

Recommendation for practice 3: adopt gender-equitable policies and practices

Lastly, organizations must pay close attention to the implementation of work-nonwork policies (e.g., Goldin, 2021; Kossek et al., 2023); It is essential that these policies are adopted and implemented with as little unintended backlash as possible. Therefore, implementing work-nonwork policies requires careful consideration of the contextual factors within an organization, such as the ideal worker myth or gendered expectations, that may prevent employees from equitably using policies or experiencing backlash from policy use. We encourage practitioners to determine how the ideal worker myth may hinder the implementation of work-nonwork policies, including possible backlash of policy use, and frame flexibility and work-nonwork balance as rights for all workers (e.g., Putnam et al., 2014). In concert, we hope these recommendations, as well as others inspired by our work, prompt a wholly new approach to deconstructing the ideal worker myth in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

Pandemic-related implications have reinvigorated work-family scholars’ discussion of the ideal worker. Here, we added to this discussion by tying together gender inequity, intersectional feminism, and the ideal worker myth. We synthesized scholarship in the context of recent events, aspects of identity, and systems, directly calling for the end (rather than the continued observation and condemnation of) the ideal worker myth. We provided an accessible and actionable analysis to this end in hopes of empowering meaningful change. We stress how efforts to support gender-equitable workplaces will fall short unless the ideal worker myth is subverted. Although many factors must be addressed to achieve gender equity, we focus on the insidious, persistent ideal worker myth as its unrealistic and unfounded expectations for workers are opposed to gender equity and intersectional feminism. We call on scholars and practitioners to challenge the ideal worker myth, recognize its ability to undermine gender equity at work, and fight for a more equitable workforce for all.

Acknowledgements

The Authors have no known conflicts of interest to share. Portions of this work are based on the first author’s comprehensive examination completed at Saint Louis University. We would like to thank Dr. Katina B. Sawyer for reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Haley R. Cobb

Haley R. Cobb, Ph.D., studies the work-nonwork interface, including boundary management and women’s involvement in the workforce. Dr. Cobb received a Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from Saint Louis University in 2023.

Candice L. Thomas

Candice L. Thomas, Ph.D., studies the work-family interface, including motherhood and lactating employees. Dr. Thomas received a Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from The University of Houston in 2017.

Madeline L. Billeaud

Madeline L. Billeaud, M.S., studies the work-family interface, including parental leave and family-friendly policies. Madeline is a Ph.D. student at Saint Louis University.

Rachel S. Rauvola

Rachel S. Rauvola, Ph.D., studies occupational health psychology, including equitable workforces for aging adults and uses an intersectional perspective. Dr. Rauvola received a Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from Saint Louis University in 2020.

Notes

1 We reject the normative label, instead using the term ideal worker myth throughout our paper, as this “norm” represents a worker who does not truly exist (e.g., Peters & Blomme, 2019).