Too womanly or not manly enough? A review of work consequences experienced by counter-normative men

For decades, precarious manhood theory has suggested that men are expected to prove their masculinity, given that it is a hard-won, tenuous state requiring continual social proof and constant validation. However, there is an emergent body of research that challenges these tenets and indicates that some men do not adhere to gendered expectations of their biological sex at work—which we refer to as counter-normativity. We conducted a systematic review to organize and synthesize this literature, thereby extending precarious manhood theory. Our review suggests the hegemonically masculine roots of precarious manhood theory are not uniformly idealized or revered as previously theorized, because counter-normative men do not necessarily value enacting the associated norms. In addition, women are often the punitive party, which is of note given that men’s counter-normativity is typically described as their acting like a woman, and is purportedly one of the worst things a man can do. Finally, although counter-normative men are largely punished in their organizations for breaking gender stereotypes, there are instances where they experience positive or neutral outcomes. We conclude by guiding forthcoming scholarship on masculinity at work, suggesting important implications for managing gender complexities in today’s work settings.