Peter Glick, PhD is the Henry Merritt Wriston Professor in the Social Sciences at Lawrence University. His research focuses on understanding and overcoming biases and stereotyping.
In addition to teaching executive education at various academic institutions (e.g., Harvard) and corporations, as a visiting Professor of Management at Northwestern University, he co-designed the Kellogg School of Management’s first diversity management course.
Dr. Glick delivers lively and informative keynote addresses on understanding and preventing bias to corporate and academic audiences. He also helped to develop anti-bias training for corporations such as Airbnb (along with Dr. Robert Livingston, Harvard University)
As an expert witness on bias, stereotypes, and discrimination, Dr. Glick has testified in federal court in Austin, Chicago, and Boston. He provides incisive reports and testimony to help juries better understand how and when bias occurs.
Dr. Glick’s award-winning scholarship includes groundbreaking theories of stereotype content, ambivalent sexism, and toxic organizational culture. He has authored more than 80 articles, which have been cited more than 45,000 times, Dr. Glick has also co-edited or co-authored three books, including the Sage Handbook of Prejudice and The Social Psychology of Gender.
Stereotype Content (Warmth-Competence) Model
With Susan T. Fiske (Princeton) and Amy J. C. Cuddy (Harvard, author of the best-seller Presence, which references their joint work), Dr. Glick co-developed the stereotype content model. The Harvard Business Review classified the model as a “breakthrough idea.” Among the most highly cited theories of stereotyping and bias, the model explains how and why discrimination varies toward different groups (e.g., based on gender, age, ethnicity, race, etc.). The theory identifies warmth and competence as universal dimensions in judgments about groups. Women and ethnic minorities often are judged as high on one dimension but low on the other, creating double-binds. Warm but incompetent stereotypes create patronizing discrimination (e.g., toward women, the elderly, the disabled). Backlash toward ambitious women stems from competent but cold characterizations. Similar stereotypes apply to successful minorities (e.g., Asians, Jews; in this Mind of State podcast Glick and Fiske address the persistence of anti-Semitism). Disadvantaged minorities often face an incompetent and cold stereotype.
Ambivalent sexism theory, developed by Dr. Glick and Susan T. Fiske (Princeton University) revolutionized how scholars understand sexism by distinguishing benevolent sexism (a term they coined) from hostile sexism. Benevolent sexism involves viewing women as wonderful, but weak and dependent on men. These views undermine women at work by denying them challenging assignments, honest feedback, and autonomy, as summarized in Dr. Glick’s article published by Harvard Business School. Research across 25 nations shows that benevolent sexism predicts actual gender inequality (e.g., fewer women in powerful positions). You can take Glick and Fiske’s Ambivalent Sexism Inventory on the PBS Newshour website and read the PBS Newshour’s take on how ambivalent sexism may have swayed the 2016 Presidential election. The Labroots video below discusses implications for sexism in STEM fields.
In 2022, I testified in Federal Court about discrimination against women in STEM for a tenure denial case in the Engineering School at the University of Texas at Austin.
With Jennifer Berdahl and Natalya Alonso (University of British Colombia), Dr. Glick developed the Masculinity Contest Culture (MCC) scale assessing toxic organizational culture.
A 2018 Harvard Business Review article explains the problems contest cultures create. Such organizations value exhibiting masculinity (show no weakness, put work first, strength and stamina, and dog eat dog competition) over achieving their core mission, creating organizational dysfunction and poor individual outcomes. MCC organizations experience toxic leaders, bullying, sexual harassment, and low support for work-life balance. Employees report lower job satisfaction, less organizational dedication, greater burnout, and higher turnover intentions.