sustainability

Article

Impact of Gender and Expatriation Choice on Career Paths inSupply Chain Management: Evidence from Master ofScience Graduates

Salomée Ruel 1 and Anicia Jaegler 2,*

�����������������

Citation: Ruel, S.; Jaegler, A. Impact

of Gender and Expatriation Choice on

Career Paths in Supply Chain

Management: Evidence from Master

of Science Graduates. Sustainability

2021, 13, 6907. https://doi.org/

10.3390/su13126907

Academic Editors: João Carlos de

Oliveira Matias and Paolo Renna

Received: 7 May 2021

Accepted: 16 June 2021

Published: 18 June 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

1 MOSI-Sustainability Excellence Center, KEDGE Business School, 13009 Marseille, France;[email protected]

2 MOSI-Sustainability Excellence Center, KEDGE Business School, 75012 Paris, France* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Zinn et al. (2018) and Esper et al. (2020) call for more research on gender diversity inSupply Chain Management, and our study responds to that call. We analyze the career path of 1081international graduates from a higher degree program in Supply Chain Management from 2000 to2017 to assess the impact of gender and expatriation choice on hierarchical progression. We exploretwo variables that may affect graduates’ career paths, namely, their gender and their expatriationchoices, and compare their relative importance. Our analysis shows that there were, on average,33.5% women recruited in the MSc and that this has not significantly changed over the years. Italso shows that gender significantly influences the number of years spent at each level in the careerhierarchy and the level reached. Regarding expatriation choice, this variable has some significantimpacts on career progression. Finally, statistics indicate that gender has a far greater influence oncareer progression than expatriation choice. Overall, this study proves the difficulties for women inenjoying the same career progression as men in the field of Supply Chain Management.

Keywords: gender diversity; expatriation; supply chain management; career paths

1. Introduction

McKinsey & Company (Paris, France) has worked since 2007 on a program entitledWomen Matter, and this has generated several reports. The 2010 report [1] addresses theproportion of women in decision-making bodies and boards of managers worldwide. Inthe manufacturing industry, women made up 6% of the boards of directors and 10% ofdecision-making bodies, while in the transport sector, they made up 9% in both categories.

Over ten years later, the global situation is not very different. If we look at the SupplyChain Management (SCM) function, particularly in the production and transport sectors,recent data still show the need to include more women. In fact, the SCM function is knownby professionals as one of the least feminized company management functions.

Many recent reports from consulting firms highlight this gender gap. For example, theWorld Economic Forum [2] highlights that in retail most shop floor workers are women—asituation that cannot be observed at the upper levels of the hierarchy. McKinsey & Companyalso points out this gender gap. In 2010, the consulting firm highlighted the necessity ofactively supporting women’s inclusion in Supply Chain (SC) opportunities: “The moreskilled women there are, the more quality employees a company has to choose from, andthe more entrepreneurs there are to participate in a company’s value or supply chain” [1](p. 15). In a 2018 report, the company [3] notes the importance of empowering womenwherever they live, since diversity has a positive relationship with a company’s financialoutperformance. A report by Deloitte [4] focuses on the talent gap in the Operations fieldand treats diversity as a way to engage new talents.

In the same line, the World Economic Forum [5] (p. 38) recently stated that “someprofessions are constrained by the availability of relevant talent, while others could effec-

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126907 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 2 of 16

tively expand gender parity by embracing greater diversity in hiring and more inclusivemanagerial practices.” Indeed, the SCM function is typically one in which there is a scarcityof talented individuals and a shortage of (wo)manpower (https://www.elementum.com/chain-reaction/4-reasons-for-the-supply-chain-talent-shortage (accessed on 17 June 2021)).Gartner’s Women in Supply Chain Survey [6] (p. 2) stresses that “Women are underutilizedresources in the so-called “war for talent” and that women are not consistently making itthrough the career pipeline as executive leaders (top managers); women make up 17% ofexecutives and 39% of the entire SC workforce. The percentage of women in executive lead-ership falls to 13% in the industrial sectors where respondents prefer a Science, Technology,Engineering and Math (STEM) degree for senior hires; these higher education streams arewell-known for their lack of gender parity”.

Even if we move from an international view to a narrow focus on Western countries(where there are active debates on the place of women in the workplace and society), recentstatistics indicate a low presence of women in the SCM function. For example, accordingto [7], in Germany, women represent 28.2% of employees in the transport and logisticssector (excluding drivers). Another example comes from Sweden, where, in 2018, womenrepresented 22% of managers in purchasing, logistics, and transport functions and 15% ofproduction managers [8].

In the research to date, few studies have looked at the topic of gender diversity inthe field of SCM (e.g., [9–11]). It has been studied in other management fields, such ascorporate social responsibility (e.g., [12–14]), corporate governance (e.g., [15–17]), andhuman resources management (e.g., [18,19]). Moreover, SCM is a global function [20], andno study has been conducted on the impact of expatriation on the career path. The authorsof [21] (p. 85) call for more research in the SCM research field: “we encourage scholarsto take up this call to action to address the critical gap in talent and particularly amongunderrepresented populations, such as women and minorities.” According to a 2019 WorldBank report, women represent no less than 49.584% of the global population and yet areoften treated as minorities in social inclusion programs (https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/social-inclusion (accessed on 17 June 2021)). This research aims to illustrate the issueof the “glass ceiling” in SCM by studying the career paths of ISLI (Institut Supérieur deLogistique Industrielle) Master of Science graduates and statistically proving the impact ofgender and expatriation choice on hierarchical progression.

We begin by reviewing Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and Social Role Theory(SRT) and the few academic articles linked to our research objective. We examined theprofiles of ISLI Specialized Master’s graduates (KEDGE Business School, France) from theclass of 2000 to the class of 2017 to study their career progression and build a database. Thisdatabase is tested on IBM SPSS and the hypotheses derived from our conceptual model.It is interesting to look at the profiles of ISLI program graduates because it is recognizedas one of the best SCM Master’s programs worldwide (https://www.best-masters.com/ranking-master-supply-chain-and-logistics.html (accessed on 17 June 2021)); it currentlyrecruits nearly 200 students each year, and, having been founded in 1984, is considered apioneer in the field.

The primary contributions of this research are twofold. First, this article contributesto addressing gender diversity issues in the SCM field. Closing the gender gap is acrucial element of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). SDG no.5, “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/ (accessed on 17 June 2021)) stresses the need forwomen’s full and equal participation in decision-making. However, from an SC perspective,this goal has only been met to a limited extent. Second, the combination of SCCT and SRTin this research attests to their relevance in explaining the relative impact of gender andexpatriation choices on graduates’ career paths in SCM functions, which are generally seenas masculine. Consequently, this study provides a perspective seldom highlighted in thecurrent literature on SCM, gender diversity, and career progress.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 3 of 16

The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we present the frameworkdrawn from SCCT and SRT and review the relevant academic literature on gender diversityin the SCM field and on expatriation choices. This section allows us to build the researchmodel and state our hypotheses. Following this, the methodology is described in detail.Next, the main findings are depicted. Finally, we discuss the results, conclude, and presentresearch perspectives.

2. Theoretical Background2.1. Social Cognitive Career Theory and Social Role Theory

SCCT [22] is based on the general social cognitive theory [23]. SCCT highlights aset of three personal cognitive factors that affect vocational outcomes: (1) self-efficacy(the extent of a person’s belief that they can successfully plan and execute performancedepending on the task [24]), (2) outcome expectations (the consequences that peopleanticipate experiencing when they perform in a given domain [25]), and (3) personal goalswhich are behavioral intentions to act in ways that elicit desired outcomes [26]. Thesecan be divided into two categories: choice goals (career selection) and performance goals(as individual objectives). The most recent goals affect the way people manage theircareers [22,27]. Additionally, SCCT integrates environmental and individual variablesthat shape the three personal cognitive factors and may explain people’s behavior whenmaking career choices [27]. More precisely, the SCCT offers several models, includingthe SCCT–CSM model. In this model, a large set of antecedents shapes self-efficacy andoutcome expectations, such as personal inputs like gender [28] or any other backgroundcontextual affordances (such as discrimination in hiring or the glass ceiling [29]). Thus,personal inputs (e.g., work–family aspects, Refs. [30,31]) and background affordancesinfluence the way people manage their careers [27]. Additionally, Ref. [32] (p. 44) point outthat “gender and gender-based social roles are the personal inputs that have garnered themost research attention to date.” One of those social roles is related to the traditional roleof women in the family [33]. However, to our knowledge, this theoretical perspective hasnever before been mobilized in SCM research, even in the rare cases of research on genderdiversity in SCM.

According to [29], SCCT treats gender from a social constructivist position. This meansthat gender is not simply an inherited biological property but also a social construction [34].This point is strengthened in [29] (p. 268): “we believe [its] relevance to career developmentstems largely from the reactions they evoke from the social-cultural environment and fromtheir relation to the structure of opportunity within which career behavior transpires.”Consequently, the SCCT encourages a consideration of how the combination of gender,context, and cognitive processes contribute to both talent development and shaping ca-reer management [24]. Expatriation can be treated as a “context” given that (1) SCM isa globalized activity, and (2) expatriation may change how a recruiter looks at an appli-cant’s résumé (many professional websites highlight this idea, including: https://www.expatnetwork.com/5-reasons-why-working-abroad-is-the-ultimate-cv-booster/ (accessedon 17 June 2021)). On this approach, the earliest research studies aiming to extend socialcognitive theory to career behavior show that because of the education they receive, younggirls lack opportunities to observe and practice certain activities [35]. Their self-efficacy ismore likely to develop to favor so-called “feminine” activities [23]. These findings suggestthat these self-limiting effects can restrict women’s career paths. This also means thatsocially constructed external barriers may be internalized and become biased self-efficacybeliefs [29], especially in STEM-related fields [36] such as SCM.

Given that the SCCT encourages looking at the joint contributions of gender, context,and cognitive processes, SRT clearly complements the contributions of the SCCT. SRT wasformulated [37] to explain the behavior of women and men as well as the stereotypes (whichare consensual beliefs [38] that change over time [39]), attitudes, and ideologies that arerelevant to gender. Nowadays, SRT is seen as a significant gender theory [40,41]. Accordingto SRT, gender stereotypes greatly influence daily and professional life, including in the

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 4 of 16

SCM function [42]. More precisely, Ref. [43] point out the gender stereotype that women arenot suited to leadership roles because of the expectation that they are communal and thatleaders are agentic and thus male. The barriers faced by women in masculine environments(and vice versa) are based on such social-role stereotypes. More precisely, the glass-ceilingphenomenon is a set of artificial barriers created by behavioral or organizational prejudicesthat prevent qualified individuals from advancing in their organization. This implies thatwomen subject to this phenomenon are also subject to discriminatory behaviors [30,31,44].Finally, gender stereotypes are background affordances according to SCCT [45]. Therefore,the combination of both SCCT and SRT is valuable in analyzing career progression in theSCM function. While the SCCT has not been mobilized in SCM research, a few articles dorefer to SRT [9,10,46].

2.2. Gender Diversity in Supply Chain Management Careers

There has been a call for additional research [21,47] about the understudied issuesof gender diversity in SCM. However, the place of women in this function has been men-tioned in the professional and academic literature since the 1990s. Looking at professionalmagazines, Ref. [11] point out that in publications such as Logistics Management or MotorTransport, women have a low statistical presence (from 5% to less than 20% depending onstudies) and it is necessary to recruit more women to fill the talent gap [48].

On the research side, the careers of women in SCM have also attracted the attention ofsome academics. The perceptions of men and women regarding their careers are comparedin [47], which introduces important results. First, Ref. [49] shows that women feel like theycannot progress as rapidly as men. Second, this study points out that men’s perceptionstoward women’s career opportunities were less negative, meaning that men were morelikely than women to feel that women could advance in an SCM career. Finally, the analysisshow that the older the men, the less negative they were in their perceptions of women’scareer opportunities. This research is the basis for several other studies that extend theresults on career-related perspectives of women in SCM. For instance, Refs. [50,51] showthat a glass ceiling exists in the SCM function, that there is discrimination against women,and that there was a need for women to be educated in logistics and SCM to empower themand support their successful careers. Another study highlights that in SCM, classical genderinequities can be identified, such as sexual harassment and the trade-off between work andfamily [52]. Even though women sometimes have to deal with a hostile environment inSCM, Refs. [52,53] found that women embracing such a career are mostly satisfied withtheir jobs. This is the case even if they are aware of and regret being subjected to a form ofdiscrimination against their gender that slows down their hierarchical progression. Otherresearch studies [54,55] focus on the transportation industry and report the same issues ona larger scale.

Lately, research has focused less on women’s careers in SCM, despite studies indicatingthat it is common for women to make up a small share of those working in the male-dominated realm of SCM [56,57]. This observation is notably made in an 18-year long-termstudy entitled Career Patterns of Women in Logistics in the USA [58,59]. The study pointsout that women hold less than 20% of senior positions in SCM. In a function stronglyrelated to SCM, that of purchasing, a qualitative study by [41] (p. 304) suggests thatwomen’s advancement is affected by “inadequate work design, male-dominated cultures,negative stereotypes, high levels of travel and an aggressive ethos.” The male dominationin the SCM function is one of the major causes of career dissatisfaction for women, whoperceive that they may have difficulty overcoming this barrier [60]. The barriers to careerprogression that were denounced in the research of the 1990s remain [61]. These are, forexample, work–life balance, difficulty participating in professional networks, and genderunconscious bias resulting in women asking for career promotion less frequently andmen in leadership promoting them less because they perceive a female leader will bepreoccupied with her family life.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 5 of 16

Nevertheless, in addition to solving the shortage of talent in SCM, attracting morewomen and thus having more gender diversity is an excellent way to improve SC per-formance. For example, compared to men, women SC managers provide new ways toselect suppliers based on safety criteria [46], and women are better at spotting contractviolations in the field of SC auditing [62]. The need to attract more women in the talentwar has been recognized, along with the fact that greater gender diversity will improveoperational performance, increase customer value, and foster innovation [61]. A recentstudy of mixed-gender pairings in the SCM field finds (1) women are more collaborativethan men in the roles of both buying and supply agents, (2) both genders are more collabo-rative when paired with women than when paired with men, and (3) all-women SC pairsoutperform all other gender pairings in SC efficiency [10]. This study contributes to thefield of SCM research by showing that having more women in the SC function is not onlya question of diversity and inclusiveness, or in a more trivial sense of “making room forwomen in a so-called masculine function”, but also a question of SC efficiency. Finally, theauthors of a recent study provide food for thought on the contributions of greater genderdiversity to the sustainable management of SC [11].

Given the numerous studies highlighting the issue of the SCM glass ceiling, thatgender is the main personal input shaping self-efficacy and outcome expectations inSCCT [28], and that a hierarchy is often based on employees (referred to here as “Level0”) being managed by middle managers (“Level 1”), who are managed by top managers(“Level 2”), we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): In the SCM function, there is a difference in the number of years spent at eachhierarchical level (H1a. Level 0, H1b. Level 1, H1c. Level 2) according to gender.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): In the SCM function, there is a difference in the level of promotion reachedaccording to gender.

2.3. Expatriation Impact on Careers

There are very few studies on the linkage between expatriation and career paths [63].Furthermore, to our knowledge, there is no specific literature associated with expatriationin the field of SCM.

Reviewing the limited relevant studies, we find that [64] shows the impact of ex-patriation on the career path is very low, which contradicts the usual encouragement inprofessional environments to expatriate as a career booster. However, self-initiated expa-triation is a game-changer in studies on expatriation [65,66]. For [67], self-expatriation ismore likely to be initiated by women than by men. At the same time, even if women arewilling to expatriate, as soon as they have a family, women are less active in seeking out aninternational job [68].

Furthermore, Ref. [69] highlight that younger generations are more mobile. Theyindicate that whatever the generation and the mobility patterns, mobility generates anupward career path. Indeed, mobility builds new skills, and this, in turn, assists inpromotion. This trend is even stronger when mobility is external to the company [70].Consequently, being less mobile has more impact for the younger than for the oldergeneration.

For expatriation to have a positive effect, the expatriate must live in a place and havemore than a brief expatriation experience [64]. This requires a particular level of remu-neration and acculturation. Moreover, Ref. [71] speaks of a dark side of expatriation. Forinstance, expatriation to countries under terrorist threats affects job-turnover intentions [72].Another example is provided by [73], who finds that expatriated females experience moreworkplace gender harassment than expatriated males. That is particularly the case incountries with institutionalized gender discrimination. The difficulty of achieving work–life balance during expatriation is addressed by [72,74] finds that expatriation reinforcesgender stereotypes.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 6 of 16

Indeed, Ref. [75] identifies the different barriers to expatriation for women as thelimited female network, family, and work–life balance. Although there is more and moreresearch on female expatriation, this phenomenon is not well understood due to a lackof comparable samples and longitudinal studies [76]. As [77] confirm, most researchfocuses on Western women who are single or in dual-career relationships in multinationalcompanies. The authors call for new research avenues focused on diversity. For example,in the existing literature, Ref. [78] evoke a second glass ceiling for women in the formof an expatriation glass ceiling. According to [79], women are underrepresented in theinternational missions, and [80] endorse and underline the responsibility of firms to mentorwomen for international assignments.

Taking into account that the SCM function is international in nature and consideringthe studies above, we suggest the following hypotheses:

Hypotheis 3 (H3): In the SCM function, the expatriation choice differs according to gender.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): In the SCM function, there is a difference in the number of years spent at eachhierarchical level (H4a. Level 0, H4b. Level 1, H4c. Level 2) depending on the expatriation choice.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): In the SCM function, there is a difference in the level of promotion reachedaccording to the choice of expatriation.

The aforementioned hypotheses lead to the following theoretical model.

3. Research Objectives and Method

This research aims to illustrate the glass ceiling issue in SCM by studying the careerpaths of ISLI Master of Science graduates from KEDGE Business School (France) andstatistically prove the impact of gender on hierarchical progression. For this, we carriedout a quantitative study based on a dataset of graduates from 2000 to 2017. Classes before2000 were not considered because the data in the information systems were known to beincomplete and quite inaccurate. Classes after 2017 were not considered either because,compared to 2021, the graduates’ professional careers have been too short to be analyzed.Analyzing the careers of ISLI graduates is relevant for several reasons: (1) this Master ofScience in SCM, established in 1984, is the oldest in the world; (2) the number of graduatessince its creation now number about 4000 SCM professionals; (3) it holds the fifth position inthe 2019 Best Masters and MBA Ranking Worldwide in Global Supply Chain Management;and (4) its quality is recognized in the form of many international educational accreditationsfrom the AACSB, EQUIS, AMBA, and CIPS, which specialize in SCM.

This dataset was built first upon the identity of graduates (name + surname + classyear + gender) provided from the internal information systems of KEDGE Business School.We then researched each graduate on LinkedIn (as in [81,82]), scanning each of their profilesone by one to complete the dataset. ISLI Master’s students have been following LinkedIntraining for a few years. From this, we were able to determine if the person had alreadyexperienced a professional expatriation in their career, what level of promotion was reached(beginning with none = 0, first management level = 1, and second management level = 2),and how many years they spent at each promotion level.

This database was tested using IBM Statistics SPSS v.27 and the hypotheses derivedfrom our conceptual model (Figure 1). It contains a sample of 1081 completed graduateprofiles from a population of 1382; the sample represents 78.22% of the entire population ofgraduates from 2000 to 2017.

Depending on the nature of each of the variables (categorical or continuous), we haveselected the relevant statistical tests required to test our hypotheses. Chi-square tests weremobilized because they are relevant to test hypotheses about categorical data [83,84]. Mann–Whitney U tests, as non-parametric tests, were also used to look for differences betweentwo independent samples (e.g., men/women and choice of expatriation yes/no) [85,86].

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 7 of 16

The latter choice was motivated by the results of the Shapiro–Wilk test, which evaluatesthe distribution normality [87].

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17

promotion was reached (beginning with none = 0, first management level = 1, and second management level = 2), and how many years they spent at each promotion level.

This database was tested using IBM Statistics SPSS v.27 and the hypotheses derived from our conceptual model (Figure 1). It contains a sample of 1081 completed graduate profiles from a population of 1382; the sample represents 78.22% of the entire population of graduates from 2000 to 2017.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Depending on the nature of each of the variables (categorical or continuous), we have selected the relevant statistical tests required to test our hypotheses. Chi-square tests were mobilized because they are relevant to test hypotheses about categorical data [83,84]. Mann–Whitney U tests, as non-parametric tests, were also used to look for differences between two independent samples (e.g., men/women and choice of expatriation yes/no) [85,86]. The latter choice was motivated by the results of the Shapiro–Wilk test, which evaluates the distribution normality [87].

4. Results 4.1. Sample Description

Of the 1081 completed profiles, 33.5% are women, and 65.5% are men, which is aligned with the few existing figures about the gender division in the SCM function (Table 1). The descriptive statistics (Table 2) also show the number of completed profiles for each graduation year.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

4. Results4.1. Sample Description

Of the 1081 completed profiles, 33.5% are women, and 65.5% are men, which is alignedwith the few existing figures about the gender division in the SCM function (Table 1).The descriptive statistics (Table 2) also show the number of completed profiles for eachgraduation year.

Table 1. Gender division.

Gender 1 Number %

Women 362 33.5Men 719 66.5Total 1081 100.0

Table 2. Graduation per year.

Graduation Year Number % Cumulative %

2000 36 3.3 3.32001 45 4.2 7.52002 37 3.4 10.92003 54 5.0 15.92004 53 4.9 20.82005 67 6.2 27.02006 63 5.8 32.82007 37 3.4 36.22008 57 5.4 41.62009 37 3.4 45.0

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 8 of 16

Table 2. Cont.

Graduation Year Number % Cumulative %

2010 49 4.5 49.52011 56 5.2 54.72012 42 3.9 58.62013 60 5.5 64.12014 78 7.2 71.32015 108 10.0 81.32016 42 3.9 85.22017 160 14.8 100.0Total 1081 100.0

At this stage of the study, it was informative to run a chi-square test [83,84] to see if thegender distribution was impacted by the year of graduation; some of the reports mentionedabove highlight that there is an increasing number of women entering SCM roles. Theresults are the following: χ2 (17) = 23.825, p > 0.05 (non-significant, more precisely p = 0.124).This means that there is no significant difference in the gender distribution between yearsof graduation. Looking at the gender distribution of our sample, we conclude that, by theyear 2000, the ISLI Master of Science was already quite feminized in comparison with thefeminization rate in the SCM function.

4.2. Gender Influence on Careers

The literature review shows that gender is often seen as a variable that influencesfactors relevant to career progression, such as choice of expatriation, the hierarchical levelreached, and the number of years spent at each level. To verify if these impacts exist, weran various tests, depending on the nature of the variables.

First, we ran several Mann–Whitney U tests (Table 3). T-test analyses were notused [85,86] for assessing the potential link between gender and the number of years spentat a hierarchical level as our data do not follow a normal distribution. To check datanormality, we ran the Shapiro–Wilk test [87] for each of the three variables: hierarchicalLevel 0, Level 1, and Level 2. That test proved that none followed a normal distribution.In this case, the Mann–Whitney U test is preferred since it is not sensitive to normaldistribution [88]. Mann–Whitney U tests are widely used non-parametric techniques fortesting two different samples from the same population [89]. Such tests do not show howthe groups differ, only that they do, in some way.

Table 3. Influence of gender on the number of years spent at each hierarchical level. (Significativetests are in bold).

Independent Variable Dependent Variables U Mann-Whitney Sig. Status

Gender

Level 0 102,846.5 0.000 H1a validated

Level 1 106,539.5 0.000 H1b validated

Level 2 112,169.0 0.000 H1c validated

Looking at descriptive statistics, we find out that women spend on average 7.33 yearsat Level 0 when men spend 5.74 years. At Level 1, women spend 2.74 years on averagewhen men spend 4.08 years on average. Finally, at Level 2, women spend 0.56 yearscompared to men who spend 1.58 years. These statistics suggest that women spend moretime at Level 0 than men before being promoted. In contrast, the average length of timespent at higher levels falls since many women have not had the opportunity to move upthe ladder and therefore accumulate zero years at these levels. This is why it is interestingto know if gender has an impact on the hierarchical level reached.

Second, we ran a chi-square test to determine if gender impacts the hierarchical levelreached in the SCM function. The results are: χ2 (2) = 39.660, p < 0.05 (significant, p = 0.000).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 9 of 16

Thus, H2 was validated. Furthermore, these results can be analyzed using descriptivestatistics. These show the gender distribution on each of the three hierarchical levels. Theresults in Table 4 show that the proportion of women decreases the higher the hierarchicallevel.

Table 4. Gender repartition at each hierarchical level.

Women Men Total

Hierarchicallevel reached

Level 0Number 196 264 460

% 42.6% 57.4% 100.0%

Level 1Number 126 280 406

% 31.0% 69.0% 100.0%

Level 2Number 40 175 215

% 18.6% 81.4% 100.0%

TotalNumber 362 719 1081

% 33.5% 66.5% 100.0%

Third, another chi-square test was run to find out whether gender influences thechoice of expatriation. The result is: χ2 (1) = 0.045, p > 0.05 (non-significant, p = 0.832).Thus, H3 was rejected.

4.3. Expatriation Influence on Careers

Another idea emerging from the literature review is that expatriation can have an im-pact on career progression. Therefore, we used the U Mann–Whitney test to see the impactof the expatriation choice on the number of years spent at each of the three hierarchicallevels. Table 5 shows that such a choice has an impact at Levels 1 and 2 (with managerialduties), so there is a link between the choice of expatriation and the time spent at eachhierarchical level.

Table 5. Influence of choice of expatriation on number of years spent at each level. (Significative testsare in bold).

Independent Variable Dependent Variables U Mann-Whitney Sig. Status

Expatriation

Level 0 121,104.0 0.219 H4a rejected

Level 1 111,759.5 0.001 H4b validated

Level 2 118,235.5 0.009 H4c validated

Looking at descriptive statistics where the choice of expatriation has a significant effecton the hierarchical level reached, graduates who have worked abroad spent 4.23 years atLevel 1 compared to 3.35 years by those who did not work abroad and who may havespent much less time at that level. In the same way, at Level 2, graduates who workedabroad spent 1.5 years at that level compared to 1.11 for the others. These descriptivestatistics suggest that those who dared to go abroad for work may have greater careeropportunities and reach a higher level in the hierarchy. For this reason, it is interesting toknow if expatriation choice has an impact on the hierarchical level reached (H5).

Indeed, we ran another chi-square test to find out whether the choice of expatriationhas an influence on the hierarchical level reached. The result is χ2 (2) = 9.804, p < 0.05(significant, p = 0.007), which enables us to validate H5. These results can be commentedon using descriptive statistics on the impact of the choice of expatriation distribution oneach of the three hierarchical levels. The results in Table 6 show that the higher in thehierarchy, the more SC managers have been expatriated. This result was not obvious fromthe literature review. The results of [64] are therefore contradicted. The self-expatriationtrend described as a game-changer by [65,66] may explain this difference.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 10 of 16

Table 6. Choice of expatriation repartition at each hierarchical level.

No Expatriation Expatriation Total

Hierarchical LevelReached

Level 0Number 333 127 460

% 72.4% 27.6% 100.0%

Level 1Number 273 133 406

% 67.2% 32.8% 100.0%

Level 2Number 130 85 215

% 60.5% 39.5% 100.0%

TotalNumber 736 345 1081

% 68.1% 31.9% 100.0%

Does Gender or Expatriation Choice Have the Greatest Influence on Careers?

Since H3 was rejected (gender has no significant impact on the choice of expatriation),this means that there is no possibility of mediation [89] by the expatriation choice variableon the relationship between gender and time at each of the levels or the level reachedby graduates. Furthermore, since gender and expatriation have a significant impact onboth the time spent at each level of the hierarchy and the level of hierarchy reached, it isinteresting to consider which of the two variables has the greatest impact on the careers ofgraduates.

To do this, we first selected the graduates who have reached Level 2 in the hierarchy.Indeed, since they have spent time at each of the hierarchical levels, it is possible to usea two-way ANOVA analysis to find which of the two variables has the greatest impacton the time spent at each level. This statistical test is suitable because the data follows anormal distribution for the sample of graduates who reached Level 2. Insofar as the H4ahypothesis is rejected (Level 0 = no promotion), the comparison between the impact ofthe gender and expatriation choice variables was limited to the number of years spent atLevels 1 and 2 (H1b, H1c, H4b, and H4c are validated).

The subsample for the two-way ANOVA was composed of 188 observations and doesnot include graduates who started their own business and thus moved from Level 0 toLevel 2 directly. In this subsample, there were 33 women and 153 men, 107 of whom havenever been expatriated and 79 who have already made this choice in their career.

As expected, the results (Table 7) show that initially there is no interaction betweengender and expatriation choice (see H3): at Level 1, Gender * Expatriation F(1.96) = 0.685,p = 0.409 (non-significant) and at Level 2 Gender * Expatriation F(1.96) = 0.483, p = 0.488(non-significant). Therefore, we focus separately and more precisely on the variables ofgender and choice of expatriation. Regarding the choice of expatriation, the results showthat for this subsample who have reached Level 2, this variable has no impact on thetime spent at Level 1 (F(1.96) = 0.773, p = 0.380 non-significant) or Level 2 (F(1.96) = 0.028,p = 0.867 non-significant). On the contrary, gender has an impact on the number of yearsspent at Level 2 (F(1.96) = 4.856, p = 0.029 significant p < 0.05) but not on the number ofyears spent at Level 1 (F(1.96) = 0.036, p = 0.850 non-significant).

Descriptive statistics show that for this subsample, women averaged 4.82 years atLevel 2 compared with 6.32 years for men, while for Level 1, women and men averagedjust over 6 years (women = 6.21 years, men = 6.52 years). These results mean that, onaverage, women lost more time at the beginning of their careers to move from Level 0 toLevel 1, which implies less cumulative time spent at Level 2 than men. The descriptivestatistics show that women from this subsample spent 4.88 years at Level 0 on averagecompared to men with an average of 3.68 years. This means that even the (few) womenwho have managed to reach the highest levels of management in the SCM hierarchy, theyhave benefited from having a slower career progression at the beginning of their careersthan men.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 11 of 16

Table 7. Two-way ANOVA comparison between the impact of gender and expatriation on the numberof years spent at Levels 1 and 2. (Significative tests are in bold).

Variables F Sig.

GenderLevel 1 (nb. years spent) 0.036 0.850Level 2 (nb. years spent) 4.856 0.029

ExpatriationLevel 1 (nb. years spent) 0.773 0.380Level 2 (nb. years spent) 0.028 0.867

Gender * ExpatriationLevel 1 (nb. years spent) 0.685 0.409Level 2 (nb. years spent) 0.483 0.488

Table Footer: * means interaction.

Then, we analyzed the difference in influence between the gender and expatriationvariables on the level of promotion achieved. To do so, we compared the chi-square resultsalready calculated previously (H2 and H5). The values shown in Table 8 indicate thatgender has an impact 4.05 times higher than the choice of expatriation on the level ofpromotion achieved. This means that a woman who wishes to move up the SCM functionhierarchy can hardly rely on a professional expatriation to compensate for her gender. Thatconfirms the results of [78] that there is an expatriation-related glass ceiling.

Table 8. Chi-square comparison between the impact of gender and expatriation on the hierarchical level reached. (Significa-tive tests are in bold).

Hypotheses Value df p-Value

H2: Gender → Hierarchical level 39.660 2 0.000H5: Expatriation → Hierarchical level 9.804 2 0.007

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This research tests a framework that examines career paths, gender, and expatriationchoice in the SCM function with several insights for theory and practice. We addressed thegender-diversity gaps in the SCM field by illustrating the glass ceiling for women in SCM.We studied the career paths of ISLI Master of Science graduates and statistically proved theimpact of gender and expatriation choice on hierarchical progression. Our sample confirmsthe gender divide in SCM (women make up about 33% and men about 66% of the field). Inaddition, women spend more time at each hierarchical level. The hierarchical level reachedis also related to gender. For example, women who reached the highest level took longerthan men to do so. Although the literature indicates that expatriation is more complicatedfor a woman [75], our study does not validate the impact of gender on the choice of anexpatriation (H3 rejected). There is a link between expatriation and the hierarchical levelreached. However, this link is four times weaker than for gender. In the SCM function, fora woman, expatriating will only partially compensate for the fact that she is a woman.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This research answers the call of [21,47] for more knowledge on gender diversity in theSCM function. It contributes to organizational theory by highlighting the applicability ofSCCT [22] and SRT [35] to gender diversity and expatriation in the specific field of SCM. Indoing so, we specifically provided additional insights on recent studies on gender diversityin SCM [9–11] by using a combination of theoretical lenses showing that personal inputs(such as gender) and background affordances (such as barriers that produce the glass-ceiling effect [19]) may influence the way women and men advance in their careers [27].

The SCCT was useful in explaining that gender, as an individual variable [28], mayimpact career paths (in line with [19]). Moreover, our study proves the rising relevance ofSRT in the SCM context (such as in [9,11,46]), more precisely by explaining that gender andassociated social role stereotypes lead to a glass ceiling for women. The combination of

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 12 of 16

these theories provides an integrative perspective of how gender impacts the career pathsin SCM by acknowledging that gender stereotypes from SRT are background affordancesaccording to SCCT [44]. Thus, this research also brings a new theoretical clarification tothe pervasive glass ceiling faced by women in SCM and already pointed out in previousstudies from the 1990s [50,51].

Another theoretical contribution concerns the impact of expatriation choice on careerpaths. Indeed, this study complements the few studies on those links [63], more preciselyby providing some perspectives from the global SCM function. Here also, SCCT provides auseful explanation that expatriation may be considered a “context” that may shape careermanagement [24]. Finally, this study was an opportunity to advance the understanding ofhow gender influences career paths in SCM and determine if expatriation choice impactsthat path. No existing research has been found on expatriation or mobility in SCM. Ourstudy presents some initial results, but it is important to deepen and further the knowledgein this field.

5.2. Implications for Practitioners

The findings of this study have implications for SC practitioners. The results show that,from the beginning, there is a bias impacting the chances that women will follow similarcareer paths to men. Indeed, from the very beginning of education in SCM, women are lessnumerous than men. It is, therefore, necessary for the entire SCM sector to take ownershipof the issue and promote and encourage access to these programs for young girls. In thiscontext, the SC actors must be involved in this promotion by, for example, intervening inhigher education and participating in job forums organized from middle school onwards.Indeed, the literature review shows that women evolve in a very masculine context, whichleads to biases in their career development. An increase in the number of women inthe profession would make it possible to change this environment and break this firstglass ceiling. Breaking it is of utmost importance in filling the talent gap in SCM [4–6,48].Employers must pay particular attention to the gender mix of their employees in the SCsector and be proactive.

A second important output is the time spent by women at each hierarchical level.The reasons may vary according to each situation (e.g., the traditional role of womenin their family environment [31]; work–life balance [75]; sexual harassment and genderdiscrimination [52]). However, paying attention to this fact for internal promotion seemscrucial. Employers can set up support for women such as a crèche, no meetings after 6 p.m.,or any other device allowing the balance of family tasks between men and women. Beyondthese actions, employers must also provide an inclusive environment that leaves no roomfor discrimination of any kind.

Third, this research may empower women as SC practitioners by offering them clearstatistics about the inequalities that remain in SCM career development between womenand men and showing them that even the choice of expatriation would not fully compensatefor the fact that they are female. These compelling arguments can serve as a basis fordiscussion with an employer in career advancement negotiations.

Finally, our research tends to nuance, for the SCM function, the usual discourse ofthe business world, which aims to promote expatriation as a career booster. By contrast,our results show that at the beginning of one’s career, the impact of expatriation is notsignificant.

5.3. Limitations and Further Research Directions

As with any research, our study is subject to several limitations that offer an opportu-nity for further research. First, our study looks exclusively at the ISLI Master of Sciencesgraduates from KEDGE Business School (France) from the class of 2000 to the class of 2017.Future studies in other countries, other business schools, and other engineering schoolsoffering this specialization might provide comparative data.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 13 of 16

Additionally, we collected data on a limited number of variables (i.e., gender, expatria-tion choice, hierarchical level, and the number of years spent at each level). We believe thatfurther research would benefit from integrating other variables such as education prior toenrolling in ISLI (STEM or business background) or other variables related to the SCCTsuch as personal goals or beliefs. For instance, a particularly relevant factor from SCCT isthe “masculinity” personal trait. This refers to an instrumental result- and problem-solvingorientation that is stereotypically seen as masculine [90–92] as per SRT [93]. Comparisonsbetween the results for the SCM function and other functions would also enrich the debateon the glass ceiling, the impact of gender on career progression, and the possible choice ofexpatriation.

Another limitation of this study is the use of LinkedIn to collect some data. As haveother researchers [83], we used LinkedIn to identify the current position of those in oursample. However, Ref. [83] state that using professional social networks may producevalidity issues since some people embellish their job titles or may not update their profiles.A third limit arises from the second. In collecting data via a professional social network, wewere limited in our ability to obtain data on “personal inputs” (other than gender) that, interms of SCCT [27,28,30], could influence careers. However, other variables such as humancapital (e.g., experience, career interruptions, education level, training, and development),individual traits (e.g., masculinity/instrumentality, ambition, self-confidence, leadershipmotivation), or environmental structural factors (e.g., male hierarchy, homophily, internallabor markets) and interpersonal elements (e.g., home status, mentor support, educationalencouragement) may also influence career paths [41,94–96].

Consequently, one research avenue could be to collect data directly from the graduatesin a research survey that includes further variables from SCCT and SRT. This would allowa more comprehensive conceptual model to be analyzed through Structural EquationModeling as in [94]. This data collection would no doubt be valuable but would also bechallenging to conduct.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.R. and A.J.; methodology, S.R. and A.J.; software, S.R.and A.J.; validation, S.R. and A.J.; formal analysis, S.R.; investigation, S.R. and A.J.; data curation,S.R.; writing—original draft preparation, S.R. and A.J.; writing—review and editing, S.R. and A.J.;visualization, S.R.; supervision, S.R. and A.J.; project administration, S.R. and A.J. All authors haveread and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: The authors want to thank Marie-Laure Furgala and Emmanuelle Barthet for alltheir help in collecting the data.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References1. McKinsey & Company. Women Matter: Women at the Top of Corporations: Making It Happen; McKinsey & Company: Paris, France,

2010.2. World Economic Forum. Global Value Chain Policy Series Gender. 2018. Available online: https://www.wita.org/nextgentrade/

global-value-chain-policy-series-gender/ (accessed on 15 June 2021).3. McKinsey & Company. Delivering through Diversity; McKinsey & Company: Paris, France, 2018. Available online: http:

//sylviakern.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Delivering-through-diversity_full-report_KcKinsey_2018_BusinessCase_DIM2018-2.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).

4. Deloitte. Women in the Boardroom. A Global Perspective. 2015. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Risk/gx-ccg-women-in-the-boardroom-a-global-perspective4.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).

5. World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/gender-gap-2020-report-100-years-pay-equality (accessed on 15 June 2021).

6. Gartner. Women in Supply Chain Survey Highlights Consumer Value Chain Progress. 2020. Available online: https://www.gartner.com/en/supply-chain/trends/2020-women-in-supply-chain-survey-highlights (accessed on 15 June 2021).

7. Destatis. Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutschland und Internationales. Germany. 2019. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Querschnitt/Jahrbuch/statistisches-jahrbuch-2019-dl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (accessed on 15 June 2021).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 14 of 16

8. Statistics Sweden. The Swedish Occupational Register with Statistics 2018. In Statistical Messages AM 33 SM 2001; Sweden, 2018.Available online: https://www.scb.se/publication/39648 (accessed on 15 June 2021).

9. Chin, T.A.; Tat, H.H. Does Gender Diversity Moderate the Relationship Between Supply Chain Management Practice andPerformance in the Electronic Manufacturing Services Industry? Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2015, 18, 35–45. [CrossRef]

10. Ma, S.; Hao, L.; Aloysius, J.A. Women Are an Advantage in Supply Chain Collaboration and Efficiency. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2020.[CrossRef]

11. Ruel, S.; Fritz, M.; Subramanian, N. Gender Diversity for Sustainability Management: Developing a Research Agenda from aSupply Chain Perspective. Logistique Manag. 2020, 28, 224–239. [CrossRef]

12. Rao, K.; Tilt, C. Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and DecisionMaking. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 138, 327–347. [CrossRef]

13. Galbreath, J. Is Board Gender Diversity Linked to Financial Performance? The Mediating Mechanism of CSR. Bus Soc. 2018, 57,863–889. [CrossRef]

14. Yarram, S.R.; Adapa, S. Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Is There a Case for Critical Mass? J. Clean.Prod. 2020, 278, 123319. [CrossRef]

15. Francoeur, C.; Labelle, R.; Sinclair-Desgagné, B. Gender Diversity in Corporate Governance and Top Management. J. Bus. Ethics2008, 81, 83–95. [CrossRef]

16. Báez, A.B.; Báez-García, A.J.; Flores-Muñoz, F.; Gutiérrez-Barroso, J. Gender Diversity, Corporate Governance and Firm Behavior:The Challenge of Emotional Management. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2018, 24, 121–129. [CrossRef]

17. Orazalin, N. Board Gender Diversity, Corporate Governance, and Earnings Management. Gend. Manag. 2019, 35, 37–60.[CrossRef]

18. Ferris, G.R.; Frink, D.D.; Galang, M.C. Diversity in the Workplace: The Human Resources Management Challenges. Hum. Resour.Plan. 1993, 16, 41–51.

19. Ali, M. Impact of Gender-Focused Human Resource Management on Performance: The Mediating Effects of Gender Diversity.Aust. J. Manag. 2016, 41, 376–397. [CrossRef]

20. Houlihan, J.B. International Supply Chain Management. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logis. Manag. 1985, 15, 22–38.21. Zinn, W.; Goldsby, T.J.; Cooper, M.C. Researching the Opportunities and Challenges for Women in Supply Chain. J. Bus. Logist.

2018, 39, 84–86. [CrossRef]22. Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D.; Hackett, G. Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and

Performance. J. Vocat. Behav. 1994, 45, 79–122. [CrossRef]23. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliff, NJ, USA, 1986.24. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997.25. Lent, R.W. Social Cognitive Career Theory. In Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work, 2nd ed.;

Brown, S.D., Lent, R.W., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 115–146.26. Gollwitzer, P.M. Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. Am. Psychol. 1999, 54, 493–503. [CrossRef]27. Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D. Social Cognitive Model of Career Self-Management: Toward a Unifying View of Adaptive Career

Behavior Across the Life Span. J. Couns. Psychol. 2013, 60, 557–568. [CrossRef] [PubMed]28. Tokar, D.M.; Thompson, M.N.; Plaufcan, M.R.; Williams, C.M. Precursors of Learning Experiences in Social Cognitive Career

Theory. J. Vocat. Behav. 2007, 71, 319–339. [CrossRef]29. Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D.; Hackett, G. Social cognitive career theory. In Career Choice and Development, 4th ed.; Brown, S.D., Ed.;

Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 255–311.30. Morrison, A.M.; von Glinow, M.A. Women and Minorities in Management. Am. Psychol. 1990, 45, 200–208.31. Schneer, J.A.; Reitman, F. The Impact of Gender as Managerial Careers Unfold. J. Vocat. Behav. 1995, 47, 290–315. [CrossRef]32. Thompson, M.N.; Dahling, J.J.; Chin, M.Y.; Melloy, R.C. Integrating Job Loss, Unemployment, and Reemployment with Social

Cognitive Career Theory. J. Career Assess. 2017, 25, 40–57. [CrossRef]33. Ferry, T.R.; Fouad, N.A.; Smith, P.L. The Role of Family Context in a Social Cognitive Model for Career-Related Choice Behavior:

A Math and Science Perspective. J. Vocat. Behav. 2000, 57, 348–364. [CrossRef]34. Fassinger, R.E. Gender and Sexuality in Human Development: Implications for Prevention and Advocacy in Counseling

Psychology. In Handbook of Counseling Psychology, 3rd ed.; Brown, S.D., Lent, R.W., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2000;pp. 346–378.

35. Hackett, G.; Betz, N.E. A Self-Efficacy Approach to the Career Development Of Women. J. Vocat. Behav. 1981, 18, 326–339.[CrossRef]

36. Lapan, R.T.; Boggs, K.R.; Morrill, W.H. Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Investigative and Realistic General Occupational Themes onthe Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory. J. Couns. Psychol. 1989, 36, 176–182. [CrossRef]

37. Eagly, A.H. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation; Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987.38. Broverman, I.K.; Vogel, S.R.; Broverman, D.M.; Clarkson, F.E.; Rosenkrantz, P.S. Sex-Role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal. J. Soc.

Issues 1972, 28, 59–78. [CrossRef]39. Eagly, A.H.; Nater, C.; Miller, D.I.; Kaufmann, M.; Sczesny, S. Gender Stereotypes Have Changed: A Cross-Temporal Meta-

Analysis of U.S. Public Opinion Polls from 1946 to 2018. Am. Psychol. 2020, 75, 301–315. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 15 of 16

40. Eagly, A.H.; Wood, W. Social role theory. In Handbook of Theories in Social Psychology; van Lange, P., Kruglanski, A., Higgins, E.T.,Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 458–476.

41. Lawrence, J.; Lonsdale, C.; Le Mesurier, N. Access denied? Exploring the Causes of the Low Representation of Women in SeniorExecutive Positions Within Procurement. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2018, 24, 304–313. [CrossRef]

42. Eagly, A.H.; Sczesny, S. Gender Roles in the Future? Theoretical Foundations and Future Research Directions. Front. Psychol 2019,10, 1–3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

43. Eagly, A.H.; Karau, S.J. Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders. Psychol. Rev. 2002, 109, 573. [CrossRef][PubMed]

44. Lyness, K.S.; Thompson, D.E. Above the Glass Ceiling? A Comparison of Matched Samples of Female and Male Executives. J.Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 359–375. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

45. Bennett, S.L.R. Contextual Affordances of Rural Appalachian Individuals. J. Career Dev. 2008, 34, 241–262.46. Park, D.; Krishnan, H.A. Gender Differences in Supply Chain Management Practices. Int. J. Manag. Enterp. Dev. 2005, 2, 27–37.

[CrossRef]47. Esper, T.L.; Goldsby, T.J.; Zinn, W.A. Challenge in Our Time: Issues of Race in Supply Chain Management. J. Bus. Logist. 2020, 41,

178–181. [CrossRef]48. Cottrill, K. Are You Prepared for the Supply Chain Talent Crisis; MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics: Cambridge, MA, USA,

2010; pp. 1–11.49. Andre, R.A. Comparison of Career Status and Attitudes Among Men and Women in Logistics. Logist Transp. Rev. 1995, 31, 179.50. Lynagh, P.M.; Murphy, P.R.; Poist, R.F. Career-Related Perspectives Regarding Women in Logistics: A Comparative Analysis.

Transp. J. 1996, 36, 35–42.51. Lynagh, P.M.; Murphy, P.R.; Poist, R.F. Career Perspectives of Women in Distribution: Congruency or Contrast? Int. J. Phys.

Distrib. Logist. Manag. 1999, 29, 192–207. [CrossRef]52. Knemeyer, A.M.; Murphy, P.R.; Poist, R.F. Opportunities for Women in Logistics: An Analysis of Student Perspectives. Transp. J.

1999, 39, 34–41.53. Johnson, J.C.; McClure, D.J.; Schneider, K.C. Job Satisfaction of Logistics Managers: Female Versus Male Perspectives. Transp. J.

1999, 39, 5–19.54. Kau, S.; Kleiner, B.H. New Developments Concerning Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in the Transportation Industry. Int.

J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2001, 21, 165–174. [CrossRef]55. Simpson, R.; Holley, D. Can Restructuring Fracture The Glass Ceiling? The Case of Women Transport and Logistics Managers.

Women Manag. Rev. 2011, 16, 174–182. [CrossRef]56. Hendricks, K.B.; Hora, M.; Singhal, V.R. An Empirical Investigation on the Appointments of Supply Chain and Operations

Management Executives. Manag. Sci. 2015, 61, 1562–1583. [CrossRef]57. Flöthmann, C.; Hoberg, K. Career Patterns of Supply Chain Executives: An Optimal Matching Analysis. J. Bus. Logist. 2017, 38,

35–54. [CrossRef]58. Cooper, M.C.; Sanstosa, J.; Hurst, D.C.; Sanders, N.R. 2011 Career Patterns of Women in Logistics: Mentoring and Balancing

Work, Life, and Study. Presented at the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals Annual Conference, Philadelphia,PA, USA, 2–5 October 2011.

59. Cooper, M.C.; Santosa, J.; Hurst, D.C.; Sanders, N.R.; Andic, E.; Polyviou, M. 2012 Career Patterns in Logistics and Supply ChainManagement. Presented at the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 30September–3 October 2012.

60. Goffnett, S.P.; Cook, R.L.; Williams, Z.; Gibson, B.J. Understanding Satisfaction with Supply Chain Management Careers: AnExploratory Study. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2012, 23, 35–158. [CrossRef]

61. Nix, N.; Stiffler, D. 2016. WOMEN in Supply Chain. Supply Chain Manag. Rev. 2016, 20, 44–51.62. Short, J.L.; Toffel, M.W.; Hugill, A.R. Monitoring Global Supply Chains. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 1878–1897. [CrossRef]63. Ramaswami, A.; Carter, N.M.; Dreher, G.F. Expatriation and Career Success: A Human Capital Perspective. Hum. Relat. 2016, 69,

1959–1987. [CrossRef]64. Benson, G.S.; Pattie, M. Is Expatriation Good for my Career? The Impact Of Expatriate Assignments on Perceived and Actual

Career Outcomes. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 19, 1636–1653. [CrossRef]65. Baruch, Y.; Altman, Y.; Tung, R.L. Career Mobility in a Global Era: Advances in Managing Expatriation and Repatriation. Acad.

Manag. Ann. 2016, 10, 841–889. [CrossRef]66. Doherty, N. Understanding the Self-initiated Expatriate: A Review and Directions for Future Research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013,

15, 447–469. [CrossRef]67. Andresen, M.; Biemann, T.; Pattie, M.W. What Makes Them Move Abroad? Reviewing and Exploring Differences Between

Self-Initiated and Assigned Expatriation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26, 932–947. [CrossRef]68. Tharenou, P. Disruptive Decisions to Leave Home: Gender and Family Differences in Expatriation Choices. Organ. Behav. Hum.

Decis. Process. 2008, 105, 183–200. [CrossRef]69. Lyons, S.T.; Schweitzer, L.; Ng, E.S. How Have Careers Changed? An Investigation of Changing Career Patterns Across Four

Generations. J. Manag. Psychol. 2015, 30, 8–21. [CrossRef]70. Feldman, D.C.; Ng, T.W.H. Careers: Mobility, Embeddedness, and Success. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 350–377. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6907 16 of 16

71. Bader, A.K.; Froese, F.J.; Kraeh, A. Clash of Cultures? German Expatriates’ Work-Life Boundary Adjustment in South Korea. Eur.Manag. Rev. 2018, 15, 357–374. [CrossRef]

72. Bader, B.; Schuster, T.; Bader, A.K.; Shaffer, M. The Dark Side of Expatriation: Dysfunctional Relationships, Expatriate Crises,Prejudice and a VUCA world. J. Glob. Mobil. 2019, 7, 126–136. [CrossRef]

73. Bader, B.; Stoermer, S.; Bader, A.K.; Schuster, T. Institutional Discrimination Of Women and Workplace Harassment of FemaleExpatriates: Evidence from 25 Host Countries. J. Glob. Mobil. 2018, 6, 40–58. [CrossRef]

74. Shortland, S. Gender Diversity In Expatriation: Evaluating Theoretical Perspectives. Gend. Manag. 2009, 24, 365–386. [CrossRef]75. Shortland, S. Female Expatriates’ Motivations and Challenges: The Case of Oil and Gas. Gend. Manag. 2018, 33, 50–65. [CrossRef]76. Shortland, S.; Altman, Y. What Do We Really Know About Corporate Career Women Expatriates? Eur. J. Int. Manag. 2011, 5,

209–234. [CrossRef]77. Hutchings, K.; Michailova, S. Female Expatriates: Towards a More Inclusive View. In Research Handbook of Expatriates; McNulty,

Y., Selmer, J., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 241–260.78. Insch, G.S.; McIntyre, N.; Napier, N.K. The Expatriate Glass Ceiling: The Second Layer of Glass. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 83, 19–28.

[CrossRef]79. Menzies, J. Shattering the Glass Border: The Factors that are Related To Women Participating in International Assignments. Int. J.

Bus. Glob. 2012, 8, 349–363. [CrossRef]80. Domínguez, M.A.; Rivo-López, E.; Villanueva-Villar, M. ‘The Glass Ceiling’: Myth or Reality? An Expatriation Perspective. Organ.

Dyn. 2019, 48, 100706. [CrossRef]81. Li, L.; Zheng, G.; Peltsverger, S.; Zhang, C. Career Trajectory Analysis of Information Technology Alumni: A LinkedIn Perspective.

In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, Boston, MA, USA, 28 September–1 October2016; pp. 2–6.

82. Coen, D.; Vannoni, M. Sliding Doors In Brussels: A Career Path Analysis of EU Affairs Managers. Eur. J. Political Res. 2016, 55,811–826. [CrossRef]

83. McHugh, M.L. The Chi-Square Test of Independence. Biochem. Med. 2013, 23, 143–149. [CrossRef]84. Rana, R.; Singhal, R. Chi-Square Test and its Application in Hypothesis Testing. J. Pract. Cardiovasc. Sci. 2015, 1, 69–71.85. Landau, S.; Everitt, B.S. A Handbook Of Statistical Analyses Using SPSS; Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2004.86. Nachar, N. The Mann-Whitney U: A Test for Assessing Whether Two Independent Samples Come from the Same Distribution.

Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2008, 4, 13–20. [CrossRef]87. Fay, M.P.; Proschan, M.A. Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney or t-test? On Assumptions for Hypothesis Tests and Multiple Interpretations

Of Decision Rules. Stat. Surv. 2010, 4, 1–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]88. Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591–611. [CrossRef]89. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publica-

tions: New York, NY, USA, 2017.90. Kossek, E.E.; Su, R.; Wu, L. “Opting Out” or “Pushed Out”? Integrating Perspectives on Women’s Career Equality for Gender

Inclusion and Interventions. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 228–254. [CrossRef]91. Williams, J.C.; Berdahl, J.L.; Vandello, J.A. Beyond Work-Life “Integration”. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2016, 67, 515–539. [CrossRef]92. Bem, S.L. Sex-Bole Inventory; Consulting Psychologists Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981.93. Eagly, A. Women as Leaders: Leadership Style versus Leaders Values and Attitudes. In Gender and Work: Challenging Conventional

Wisdom; Ely, R., Cuddy, A., Eds.; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 4–11.94. Tharenou, P.; Latimer, S.; Conroy, D. How do you Make it to the Top? An Examination of Influences on Women’s and Men’s

Managerial Advancement. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 899–931.95. Kirchmeyer, C. Determinants of Managerial Career Success: Evidence and Explanation of Male/Female Differences. J. Manag.

1998, 24, 673–692. [CrossRef]96. Tharenou, P. Going up? Do Traits and Informal Social Processes Predict Advancing in Management? Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44,

1005–1017. [CrossRef]

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.