Queen Bee Phenomenon: The Myth vs. the Underdiscussed Social Driver of Microaggression and Internalized Misogyny
Sudipta Nandi
Independent Researcher
Abstract: A higher participation rate in professional
life does not indicate a smooth upward mobility for women. That is why women in
senior leadership positions are still a rare phenomenon. Apart from the
male-dominated work culture, workplace demands often devour certain parts of
personal life. Unfortunately, these glass ceiling conditions are not making
women compassionate to each other. Instead, they are growing the Queen Bee
traits to restrict junior women’s path in the power hierarchy. So, the society
has to be satisfied with only 3.8% of the Fortune 500 women CEO and 8% of top
executives. Systematic reviews on the QBP alert that this is not a trivial girl
fight. Rather, its root goes much deeper into the suppressive conditioning of
patriarchal practices. QBP is more hereditary than social. However, structural
reforms with gender equal opportunities and access to diversity and inclusion
studies can change the current environment. Instead of dismissing QBP as a
myth, social scientists should be more attentive to unconscious and conscious
biases related to gender.
Keywords: Queen Bee
Phenomenon (QBP), Gender Inequality, Microaggression, Lateral violence,
Internalized Misogyny
Introduction:
Evolutionary Game Theory suggests
that leadership evolves to solve coordination challenges (Wuertele, 21). Words
like coordination and collaboration cannot work alone and are highly associated
with the mutual goals of a group of individuals. The group formation can be
identity, communication, or motive-based, but non-leaders usually do not have a
unique viewpoint and predefined goal sets like leaders. Among the six
components of leadership, the Queen Bee Phenomenon (QBP) directly violates the
first two, namely, character and standard social architecture with intellectual
capital (Wuertele, 23). For instance, a woman team leader isolating a younger
female intern to demonstrate power violates the inclusion and collaboration
goals of leadership. Similarly, a mother-in-law pressuring a daughter-in-law to
do household chores while offering her daughter free time creates an unhealthy
competitive environment with mistrust and suppression.
They often discourage the daughter-in-laws with harsh and
demotivating words, and that blocks the growth potential of the younger
in-laws. The in-laws’ examples demonstrate a violation of standard social
architecture in terms of intellectual capital. Although the phenomenon was
coined with the workplace upward mobility study of women in the 70s, the social
phenomenon tends to induce microaggression and gender violence (Wuertele, 27).
A Tajikistan-based demographic and health survey dataset confirmed that young,
married women in a patrilocal marriage setting face a high frequency of
emotional and domestic violence incidents, especially when living with the
in-laws (Turaeva, 5).
Discussion:
The University of Michigan study that coined the “Queen
Bee phenomenon” defines it as a socio-psychological phenomenon of same-gender
dissociation and suppression while being successful in a male-dominated
environment. Queen bees tend to be bullies and micromanagers. A recent study on
workplace bullying confirmed that more than 33% of women are victims of
bullying, and 19% of the bullied women observed a minion (Middle-bee) of the
Queen Bee for help (Wuertele, 29). Contextually, the phrase “male-dominated
environment” is crucial as it develops deep insecurity in women. The women
observe limited leadership roles and even suffer from the Tokenism effect (a
single available vacancy). Naturally, that creates a crisis, and other women
seem like key rivals. Moreover, the male-dominated environment demands strict
followers of male norms.
To survive, women force themselves to downplay their
gender identity, and that induces the pattern of dissociation. In the
scientific research sector, the ideal scientist characteristics include
exclusive involvement in research, free from personal distractions. So,
childbirth and childcare can be major distractions (Gomes et al.). These
merit-based myths and strict vertical hierarchical patterns, even with
affirmative policies (women-centric), trigger that pattern of disassociation
intensely. The National Academy of Science observed that unintentional biases
and outdated institutional structures override the talent to intensify the
gender stereotypes for women (Chisholm-Burns et al. 318). The feminine features
are somewhat devalued with a significantly higher rate of evaluations and
scrutiny. Moreover, those features are criticized with tags like “too soft” or
“too tough”. Women are even penalized for “too little” or “too much”
independence or assertiveness.
So, a double pressure scenario develops involving
competition and stereotypes. Contextually, a 2016 Washington Post article
confirmed that conscious and unconscious gender bias affect women scientists’
job tenure decisions in venerable organizations like the National Institute of
Health (Chisholm-Burns et al. 320). Salary-wise, this glass ceiling presses
even harder, demonstrating a 21% gap for the same job. If that is the situation
of a developed country like America, then developing and underdeveloped
countries must have unimaginable glass ceilings. In this restricted
environment, where showing the full potential is taboo, the very few women who
somewhat reach the leadership rat-race do not want to sacrifice it. Naturally,
microaggression and violence become a key part of their reactions.
However, women-to-women aggression or violence is still
not a concerning social phenomenon and often is considered a paradoxical
behavior. Ironically, this paradoxical behavior has been a thing in societies
(globally) for a long time. Furthermore, the Queen Bee phenomenon is more
highlighted in the workplace scenario as a part of a gender-specific power
struggle. Too much focus on the workplace misses the root of this phenomenon,
which is imprinted in the oppressive cultural practices of patriarchal
societies. For generations, traditional practices like limited educational and
economic opportunities, certain conditions for social participation, rigid
gender roles, and male dominance have been common themes in households. Women
who grow up with such restrictions have no channels to show their anger and
frustration. So, a lateral violence scenario emerges to channel the negative
emotions towards younger women. That creates a never-ending vicious circle of
internalized oppression, from mother-in-laws to daughter-in-laws, step-mothers
to step-daughters, and so on.
The oppressed women in the workplace scenario follow the
same pattern of aggression to survive, and the vicious circle grows. Very few
anthropological studies have documented this phenomenon, although there is an
adequate number of peer-violence cases. Contextually, the female genital
mutilation cases are abundant in the Middle East and Central Africa, and most
of the senior women support this violent practice, mentioning tradition and
security (Turaeva 4). Interestingly, the studies that support the non-existence
of the QBP suggest that women in leadership positions support junior women to
climb the career ladder. Those studies also quote from the first study to
determine that the phenomenon was considered an anomaly instead of a norm
(Tchindebet et al. 97). There are major pieces of evidence to dismiss the
phenomenon as a myth, considering women-to-women relationships, expectations,
and divergence.
Of course, some women in authority positions are helpful
and supportive. But, they cannot dismiss the Queen Bee triggers, including the
pressure of male norms, regular inequalities, and social identity threats (Tchindebet
et al. 100). Those supportive women leaders may have personality traits to
overcome the challenges to avoid lateral violence while staying feminine.
Unfortunately, there are no specific studies to compare the supportive female
leaders' and Queen Bee leaders’ personality traits. Even their backgrounds can
tell a lot about their coping mechanism for organizational self-preservationist
demands. However, research on this topic is not that frequent. Rather, the
social phenomenon expresses itself in highlighted male traits, maintenance of
the gender-based status quo, and dissociation from female subordinates.
In the authority positions, men and women think alike.
They believe that male features are directly proportional to better status and
power (Gomes et al.). So, women, strategically, try to fit with a male
description of their skill sets and other traits. Masculinity and ambition
become two key traits in women leaders. That reflects in a significantly higher
commitment to the work and an aggressively ambitious self-rating. This
submission to male traits makes the Queen Bees sacrifice more than other women
in their personal lives. Therefore, in the academic sector, particularly the
research domain, successful women often lack family and children. The bitterness
of sacrificing for a career often channels into inflicting the same on junior
women (Gomes et al.).
The Queen Bee phenomenon is not a trivial thing. It has a
pervasive dynamics that encourages gender inequality and male dominance. It
teaches that the sets of male traits should be generalized as the key to
success (Baykal et al. 169). That thought process is a direct violation of the
organizational diversity and inclusion theme. It is also making the gender
discrimination consistent. Moreover, it is separating women from their natural
personality traits and gender identity. That reflects in the avoidant traits in
women when they notice the emotional and physical violence against other women
(Baykal et al. 171). So, both heterogeneous and lateral are becoming normalized
with this social phenomenon. Additionally, it is creating a culture of negative
evaluation where women cannot understand their true potential. That is
challenging for the social architecture. As it creates a negative professional
and personal atmosphere, social and professional tension increases
substantially.
Contemporary gender studies blame women for their low
participation rate in upper levels (da Rocha Grangeiro et al. 93). Instead,
those organizations should take a step back and reflect on the social
responsibility models and policies. Previous Queen Bee studies already
confirmed that women can choose individual strategies per their personality
traits to fight this identity threat. Despite converting into future Queen
Bees, they can create a network or focus group of Queen Bee victims to open up
or promote awareness. A group of victims is often considered a disadvantaged
group. So, people tend to undervalue their thought process. At that undervalued
point, the victim group can either try to integrate collectively or
disassociate individually. The strategy of dissociation leads them towards the
Queen Bee traits. So, the victim group should be careful about their reactions.
Interestingly, a gender comparison on competitive mindset observes that
competition-based cross gender conflicts are tolerated and celebrated in
organizations even when the competition takes unhealthy turns (da Rocha
Grangeiro et al. 93).
A systematic review of the Queen Bee literature suggests
that female competition-based Queen Bee traits and relevant gender
discrimination (lateral) are solely women’s responsibilities. However, the
background and consequence study as a part of the socio-psychological study
confirms that the root has gone deeper in the restrictive model of patriarchy.
That involves a set of hereditary behaviour from biological science too (da
Rocha Grangeiro et al. 93). As this is a deeply imprinted architectural
challenge, therefore, root cause analysis and pattern detection are important
before resolutions. The root cause can be a male-dominated environment, limited
opportunities, individual status protection, or a mixture of all these causes.
So, the solutions should be organization-wide and structural. It should not be
avoided as a mere woman-to-woman issue. For instance, gender-bias training, a
reformed evaluation system, and peer mentoring can be encouraged as structural
solutions. Moreover, training on unconscious bias, assertive communication, and
a gender-equal conflict mediation system can help. In the domestic sphere,
calculative boundary, collaboration model, and education on bias with gentle
correction may help.
Conclusion:
In the case of the Queen Bee phenomenon, two key themes
are noticed. They are inequalities and restrictions on upward mobility.
Although this phenomenon is often considered a myth, various case studies beg
to differ. Those examples suggest that the phenomenon forces women to
demonstrate male traits, dissociate from their original gender identity, and
make certain sacrifices in their personal lives. Most of the gender studies
tend to blame women for this unhealthy environment, but they never analyze the
male-dominated work environment or unhealthy demands for upward mobility.
Moreover, the glass ceiling of limited opportunities and male domination
creates an environment where too much or too little reaction can cause a
penalty. This is not just a workplace thing. The same-sex gender attack is a
major part of the patrilocal societies where patriarchy and a scarcity mindset
trigger the said. This age-old problem will continue to grow until society pays
attention to the traditional structure and its gender-centric biases.
Considering the structural elements, the solutions should be collective,
collaborative, and educational for all women. As the Queen Bees have already
faced and coped with the restrictions, their mindset change will be a difficult
process. However, educational boundaries and collective reflections can
transform the scenario. So, the phenomenon needs a gender-neutral attention of
social science where everyone has the opportunity to apply their full
potential.
Works Cited
Baykal, Elif, Soyalp, Erkan, and Yeşil,
Rahime. "Queen bee syndrome: A modern dilemma of working women and its
effects on turnover intentions." Strategic Outlook for Innovative Work
Behaviours: Interdisciplinary and Multidimensional Perspectives. Springer International Publishing, 2020,
pp. 165-178. Research Gate, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50131-0_9
Chisholm-Burns, Marie A., Hagemann, Tracy,
and Josephson, Michelle. "Women in leadership and the bewildering glass
ceiling." American Journal of
Health-System Pharmacy, 74, 5, 2017, pp. 312-324. Research Gate, doi:10.2146/ajhp160930.
da Rocha Grangeiro, Rebeca, Gomes Neto, M.
B., Silva, L. E. N., & Esnard, Catherine. "The triggers and
consequences of the Queen Bee phenomenon: A systematic literature review and
integrative framework". Scandinavian
journal of psychology, 65, 1, 2024, pp.86-97.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/sjop.12957
Gomes, Neto M.B, Grangeiro, Rebeca R, and
Esnard, Catherine. "Academic women: A study on the queen bee
phenomenon." Revista de
Administração Mackenzie, 23, 2, 2022.
https://www.scielo.br/j/ram/a/zjTNYscMRwDxczDqXFc4QSH/?format=html
Tchindebet, Jessica L., Sanfilippo, Jamie H.,
Johnson, Tarita D., and Longman, Karen A. "Dispelling the myth of the
'Queen Bee Syndrome': Assessing women’s professional relationships with women
in Christian higher education." Christian
Higher Education, 23, 2, 2024, pp. 90-114. Taylor and Francis, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2024.2304357
Turaeva, Mavzuna. "Queen Bees and
Domestic Violence: Patrilocal Marriage in Tajikistan." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016, pp.1-79.
https://sites.duke.edu/djepapers/files/2016/10/mavzunaturaeva-dje.pdf
Wuertele, Ramona. "The influence of the
Queen Bee Syndrome on the attitudes, behaviors, and emerging leadership styles
of the Millennials." 2017.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1104035/FULLTEXT02