How Women Think About Success — Ambition, Balance, and Meaning
By the numbers
Figures come from the studies cited at the end of this page. Numbers describe group averages and study samples, not rules about individuals.
The evidence
What the research actually shows
One of the most replicated findings is a double bind around visible ambition. Heilman and Okimoto (2007), building on Madeline Heilman's earlier work (2001), found that when women clearly succeed in roles typed as masculine, they are often rated as competent but less likable — an 'implied communality deficit' that can shape hiring and promotion decisions. Men who succeed in the same roles rarely pay this social tax. The pattern suggests that for many women, success is not judged on results alone but filtered through expectations about warmth and modesty.
A related asymmetry appears around parenthood. In a well-known experimental study, Correll, Benard and Paik (2007) sent matched fictitious resumes to real employers and had participants evaluate identical candidates who differed only in whether they were parents. Mothers were rated as less competent and committed and were less likely to be recommended for hire, while fathers were not penalized and in some measures were viewed more favorably. This 'motherhood penalty' helps explain why career trajectories can diverge even between equally qualified people.
Yet holding multiple roles is not simply a burden. Barnett and Hyde's expansionist theory (2001) reviewed decades of evidence and concluded that combining work and family roles tends, on average, to benefit well-being rather than deplete it — a pattern of role enrichment, not just role strain, up to a point. And the Harvard Study of Adult Development, summarized by Waldinger and Schulz (2023), found across more than eighty years that the strongest predictor of a healthy, satisfied life was not achievement or wealth but the warmth of close relationships. These findings apply to women and men alike.
The mechanism
Why this happens
Part of the story is socialization and the backlash that can follow when women behave in ways read as self-promoting or dominant. Research on gender backlash (for example Rudman's work on the costs of self-promotion) suggests that agentic behavior praised in men can provoke social penalties in women, nudging many toward a more relational, less status-forward definition of what a good career looks like. This is a response to an environment, not evidence of lower drive.
There is also the matter of load. Arlie Hochschild's concept of the 'second shift' (1989) captured how women who work for pay often return home to a disproportionate share of housework and caregiving. When success at work sits atop that unequal load, the 'having it all' narrative can feel less like empowerment and more like doing everything at once, which shapes how ambition is weighed against sustainability.
Finally, many women actively redefine success on their own terms. Self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan) finds that well-being is fed by autonomy, competence, and relatedness rather than by external markers, and research on intrinsic versus extrinsic goals suggests that chasing status and money tends to correlate less with happiness than pursuing growth and connection. Choosing a self-authored definition of success is, in that light, a psychologically sound move rather than a retreat.
The 'opt-out' story often mistakes a structural penalty for a lack of ambition.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
A woman earns the promotion she worked toward, then notices the subtle shift — being described as 'intense' or 'a lot,' where a male colleague doing the same would be called driven. The achievement is real, but so is the social cost, and navigating both at once is part of what success can feel like from the inside.
Another maps her thirties as a constant negotiation between a demanding job and caring for young children or aging parents. The 'having it all' framing quietly implies she should manage both flawlessly and alone; naming the load as structural, not personal, often changes how she measures whether she is succeeding.
A third steps off a prestigious but hollow track to build work around autonomy and meaning — fewer status markers, more control over her time. To outsiders it can look like lowered ambition; to her it is a more honest definition of a life worth having, and the well-being research tends to back the instinct.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
The most common misconception is that women who step back from high-status ladders are simply less ambitious — the 'opt-out' story. The evidence points elsewhere: documented penalties, backlash, and an unequal domestic load shape those choices at least as much as preference does. Mistaking a structural headwind for a lack of drive gets the causation backwards.
A second error is equating success with status and income themselves. Beyond a comfortable baseline, more money and prestige add surprisingly little to lasting well-being, while relationships and meaning add a great deal. This is not a lesson only for women — it is one of the sturdiest findings in happiness research, applying across the board.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
Because load is such a strong factor, how a couple shares domestic and caregiving work often shapes whether both partners can pursue the kind of success they want. Partnerships that distribute the second shift more evenly tend to give both people room for ambition and rest, and the role-enrichment research suggests this can raise well-being for everyone in the household rather than trading one person's gain for another's.
It also helps when partners treat each other's definitions of success as legitimate rather than competing. Supporting a partner's ambition — and being genuinely supported in return — tends to build the kind of secure, cooperative relationship that itself predicts a good life. Success framed as shared rather than zero-sum is easier to sustain over decades.
Success: some documented average tendencies
Broad averages with heavy overlap — many people differ from their group's tendency. This is a map, not a measurement of any one person.
| Aspect | ● Men (avg.) | ● Women (avg.) |
|---|---|---|
| Social cost of visible ambition | Assertiveness is often read as leadership, with little backlash | Clear success in male-typed roles can dent perceived likeability, on average |
| Parenthood and perceived competence | Some studies find fathers are not penalized, and can even benefit | Hiring studies document a penalty in perceived commitment for mothers |
| Load carried alongside work | On average carry a smaller share of caregiving and the mental load | Often add paid work atop a larger domestic and caregiving share |
| What predicts a good life | Close relationships and meaning outrank status | Close relationships and meaning outrank status — the pattern is shared |
Where it varies
The nuance
These are averages, and the overlap between the sexes is large. Janet Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis (2005) shows that on most psychological measures men and women are far more alike than different. Plenty of men define success mainly through relationships and meaning, and plenty of women are fiercely status-driven; the tendencies describe distributions, not individuals.
The picture is also shifting and context-dependent. Penalties like the motherhood effect vary by industry, country, and era, and they appear to be softening in some places. Class, culture, and personal temperament shape what success means far more than sex alone, so the honest summary is a set of pressures and patterns — never a rule about what any one woman wants.
Key takeaways
- Women tend to define success broadly — spanning work, relationships, and care — though this overlaps heavily with how men think.
- Real structural headwinds exist: a competence–likeability tradeoff and a motherhood penalty that men rarely encounter.
- The 'opt-out' narrative often mistakes structural penalties and an unequal load for lower ambition.
- Combining roles tends to benefit well-being on average (role enrichment), provided the load is shared and sustainable.
- Across long-running studies, relationships and meaning predict a good life more reliably than income or status, for everyone.
Questions people ask about this
Are women less ambitious than men?
On average the evidence does not support that. What looks like lower ambition often reflects documented penalties, backlash for self-promotion, and an unequal domestic load rather than less drive. The tendencies overlap heavily, and individual variation is far larger than any average gap.
What is the 'motherhood penalty'?
It refers to a documented pattern, shown experimentally by Correll, Benard and Paik (2007), in which mothers are rated as less competent and committed and are less likely to be recommended for hire than identical candidates without children. Fathers, by contrast, tend not to be penalized and are sometimes viewed more favorably.
Why can success sometimes cost women likeability?
Heilman and Okimoto's research (2007) found that women who clearly succeed in roles seen as masculine are often judged competent but less warm — an 'implied communality deficit.' Because likability influences real evaluations, this double bind can make visible achievement socially costlier for women than for men, on average.
Do men and women define success differently?
There are modest average tendencies — women somewhat more often weigh relationships and balance alongside achievement — but the overlap is very large. Many men prize connection and meaning, and many women prize status. Individual values, culture, and circumstance predict the difference better than sex does.
Does 'having it all' actually make women happier?
Holding multiple roles tends to benefit well-being on average, a pattern Barnett and Hyde call role enrichment — but that depends heavily on the load being shared and sustainable. When work sits atop an unequal 'second shift,' the same roles can tip from enriching to depleting.
What actually predicts a good life?
Long-running research, including the Harvard Study of Adult Development, consistently finds that the quality of close relationships predicts health and happiness more reliably than income or status. Meaning, autonomy, and connection tend to matter more than external markers of success for women and men alike.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92.
- Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1338.
- Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56(10), 781–796.
- Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. Viking.
- Waldinger, R. J., & Schulz, M. S. (2023). The Good Life: Lessons from the World's Longest Scientific Study of Happiness. Simon & Schuster.
- Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
Written and reviewed by the Men Women Psychology Editorial Team against our editorial standards. This article is educational and is not a substitute for professional advice.