Traditional gendered expectations position men as the breadwinner and women as the caregiver (Eagly, 1987; Kossek et al., 2021; Riggs, 1997). These norms have been shown to impact work-family dynamics both at the individual level i.e. women historically and continue to experience greater caregiving expectations (Bear and Glick, 2017; Neuenswander et al., 2023) and at the organizational level i.e. workplace norms that reward those who meet traditional masculine-rooted prototypes (Berdahl et al., 2018). Although some modern gender views redefine the role of masculinity (i.e. the prescribed behaviors and/or characteristics of men) and call for egalitarianism wherein men actively participate in both work and home domains, there is variation in acceptance (McGill, 2014). Highlighting this, recent country-level analyses have shown significant variation in gender egalitarianism beliefs as national scores of such beliefs (measured on a 0–1 scale) ranged from below 0.25 (e.g. Egypt) to above 0.75 (e.g. Norway) based on 2021 reports (Woo et al., 2023).Accordingly, the role of masculinity at work and home is evolving for some and persisting for others. This divergence creates ambiguity as to what individual work-family decisions are encouraged, accepted or met with resistance for men within the larger societal, workplace and family contexts. In support, research suggests greater egalitarianism can allow for more discontinuous careers for men (Mainiero and Sullivan, 2006) and greater work-life balance (Lyness and Judiesch, 2014) with relevance for career sustainability and satisfaction. In contrast, other examples highlight that men's misalignment with traditional gendered expectations can still yield negative consequences, even as modern norms evolve (Gatrell et al., 2022); this can reduce men's comfort in using egalitarian practices and thus lessen the related benefits they can derive from them. Given this contemporary inconsistency in what constitutes being “masculine,” it is imperative for research to examine how men grapple with this key part of their identity as they engage in the work and family domains. Moreover, understanding masculinity as a broader cultural force is essential for explaining how workplace expectations around masculinity shape employees' career and family decisions.Within this special issue, we aim to expand on this modern conceptualization of masculinity by bringing together conceptual and empirical research from a variety of research teams across the globe; moreover, a variety of methodologies were used within the empirical research (e.g. survey-based, experimental and qualitative designs), allowing for rich coverage of the related constructs. While masculinity is often studied in social sciences (cf., McMahon, 2024; Smiler, 2024), this special issue takes a career-centric approach and adds to the literature on men and masculinities, highlighting how social and workplace norms around masculinity shape both work and family outcomes. Together, this provides a holistic view of how men's experiences are shaped by masculinity as they navigate work and family demands, as well as more broadly how all employees are influenced by workplace norms that are rooted in and reward masculine displays (Acker, 1990; Berdahl et al., 2018; Kanter, 1989). Through this, pathways forward are provided to examine the evolving nature of masculinity and its relevance to careers and family decisions in the years to come.Craig Aulisi and Kuykendall (2026) leverage identity theory (Stryker and Burke, 2000) to consider how men vary in their beliefs pertaining to what it means to be a good parent and good employee with ramifications for career and work-family outcomes. Using samples of working fathers, they developed and validated a scale examining the importance men place on their nurturer, provider and ideal worker identities. Their findings show how men can vary in the relative importance of these domains in line with the present evolving nature of masculinity. Moreover, using a time-lagged survey design, they found the ideal worker identity inhibited expecting fathers' intentions to use parental leave, whereas parental identities (i.e. nurturer and provider) did not have an impact on such outcomes. This is notable given contemporary framings of masculinity that accentuate active fatherhood (McGill, 2014). Taken together, results show the complex factors associated with work-family decisions that men must consider after the birth or adoption of one's child. Moreover, this research provides rationale to consider masculinity as a multi-faceted identity, with each facet potentially having greater relevance depending on the outcomes of interest.Buonocore et al. (2026) examined the variety in the framing of what constitutes masculinity and how these various framings impact work-family decisions. They examined this using a qualitative design consisting of 45 structured interviews with men who ranged in their belief in the “traditional” breadwinner model of masculinity to the more “contemporary” egalitarian model. Through this approach, the authors spotlight the role of age in shaping individuals' beliefs about masculinity and how they align with it, as well as how these beliefs impact their willingness to use and actual use of work-family policies. Past research has detailed that men may experience barriers to using these policies even when offered (Gatrell et al., 2014), and this study provides insights explaining “why” this may happen. Via this contribution, the authors provide support for Connell's (2020) theory of multiple masculinities and, in turn, rationale for future work-family and career research to account for the relatively rapidly changing perceptions regarding what constitutes “manhood.”Mojzisch and Roswag (2026) examined the role of precarious manhood or the societal belief that manhood is a dynamic status earned and lost based on alignment with masculine norms in career ambition. While the gender wage gap is well documented and noted in public discourse, less attention has been paid to the growing research on the ambition gender gap, which refers to findings wherein men report greater career ambition than women (Wald et al., 2024). Using an experimental design with 829 participants, Mojzisch and Roswag (2026) focus on how the precariousness of manhood may facilitate men's career ambition. This perspective notably provides a complement to existing research largely focused on the nature of this precarity as a stressor and its related harms. Through their work, the authors extend the scope of precarious manhood research to consider how related concerns may be a motivator that drives men to professional success, setting the stage for future research to consider other potential benefits across domains that arise from the constant need to reaffirm one's manhood status.Fletcher et al. (2026a) leverage a mixed-methods design to test the role of precarious manhood beliefs in detrimental leadership behavior. To explore these factors, they use a vignette study in Study 1 and a time-lagged survey in Study 2. Across their studies, the authors find support for a moderating effect wherein leaders' precarious manhood beliefs were related to greater abusive supervision, such that the relationship was significant among leaders who were men but not among leaders who were women; moreover, the time-lagged survey suggested interpersonal conflict was a boundary condition of this moderation, such that the significant relationship among men leaders only emerged when interpersonal conflict was high. Their findings extend precarious manhood theory (Vandello et al., 2008) by demonstrating that men vary in how they perceive the precarity of their manhood and how these perceptions impact real-world behaviors in the workplace. Further, these findings demonstrate the relevance of gendered beliefs around masculinity as having a potential cascading effect on both the career and work-family outcomes of the focal actor, as well as those throughout their social network, such as subordinates.Fletcher et al. (2026b) provided additional insights for masculinity through the lens of organizational culture. Using a cross-sectional survey design consisting of those who self-identified as a man or a woman (N = 486), they examine how perceptions of masculinity contest culture (MCC) relate to both descriptive (fact-based) and evaluative (individual interpretation) human resource practices; MCC refers to environments wherein environmental norms align with tenets of traditional masculinity (e.g. working until exhaustion and putting work before family) and reward related behaviors. Through this effort, they show evidence that individual perceptions of masculinity at the organizational level (i.e. MCC) negatively relate to the provision of mental but not physical and health benefits. Moreover, perceived MCC was also found to negatively relate to the communication of mental health benefits, as well as self-reported confidence in knowledge of mental health benefits. Of note, the authors find consistent support for these findings while controlling for a variety of individual differences (e.g. company size, income and education), providing evidence of robustness. Their work extends masculinity theory beyond men's experiences to the broader context of organizational culture, showing that employees broadly (rather than just men) who perceive their organizations as valuing stereotypical masculinity report lower access to and awareness of mental health and well-being supports. Such findings set the stage for future research to further consider how MCC expectations can inform design and implementation of policies and practices that promote both mental and physical health.Monton and Block (2026) also examined MCCs but alternatively focused on their harmful effects in workplaces where aggressive behaviors associated with masculinity have become normalized over time. Using data from a sample of over 100 Olympians and Para-Olympians, they show the potential detrimental outcomes when employees perceive a workplace as aligned with traditional masculine tenets, such as in elite sport settings. Drawing on athlete self-reports after competing in the Olympian's or Para-Olympian's relevant competition, Monton and Block (2026) found support that greater perceptions of MCC were detrimental across life domains, with negative relationships to mental well-being and a variety of job attitudes. Moreover, greater reports of MCC were not related to greater individual goal attainment, providing no evidence that the intense standards inherent in MCC translated into greater “gains” for individual success. Together, these findings demonstrate that MCC can be harmful even in roles with high performance expectations, highlighting the need to consider new approaches to motivation in the years to come, both in sports and more traditional workplaces.Closing out the special issue is a viewpoint article by Klarsfeld et al. (2026). These authors contend masculinity has not been thoroughly captured or considered in the existing literature, highlighting a gap in our understanding of masculinity, careers and diversity, especially for disadvantaged men. To encourage growth in this area, they provide a nuanced discussion of masculinity within an intersectional framework that considers race, income, age and other factors and how they may influence experiences of masculinity with relevance for careers, such as through vocational preparation and career entry. With this intersectional approach, the authors provide several pathways for future research that can help improve our understanding of the specific challenges that men, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can face as they aim to establish a career and meet masculine expectations. This includes, but is not limited to, discussions of the changing nature of the workplace and how the emergent technologies such as artificial intelligence may negatively impact the working experiences of disadvantaged men.As shown throughout the special issue articles, the considerations related to masculinity are diverse in nature. Within this edition, we showcase manuscripts that focus on the conceptualization of what “masculinity” entails (e.g. Buonocore et al., 2026) as well as how individuals' perceptions of themselves (e.g. Mojzisch and Roswag, 2026) and of organizations (e.g. Monton and Block, 2026) relate to a variety of career and family outcomes. Building from these articles, we identify several key takeaways that can be leveraged within future research to further our understanding of the role of masculinity in careers and work-family outcomes.Aligning with the special issue's aim of highlighting the evolving role of masculinity, it is essential to examine masculinity beliefs at the individual level and their role in work and family outcomes. Indeed, prior research suggests the degree to which men agree with gender egalitarian principles moderates the degree to which performance in the family role relates to strain (Regina and Allen, 2025). Complementing this, findings from Buonocore et al. (2026) and Craig Aulisi and Kuykendall (2026) highlight how men vary in the importance they place on a variety of roles with potential relevance for stressor-strain relationships, as well as intrinsic motivation to engage in role behaviors (e.g. workaholism or caregiving). Indeed, if modern times are allowing for variation in what men feel is expected of them both in the work and family domains, then research that neglects to consider the beliefs of their samples may be missing a crucial boundary condition; such oversights can meaningfully skew results and our understanding of the process through which relationships emerge.While sensemaking of masculinity occurs at the individual level, that does not change that social norms may also shape and inform relevant expectations. As outlined by Fletcher et al. (2026a, b) as well as Monton and Block (2026), environmental demands can also encourage adherence to traditional masculinity. Thus, there is the potential for misalignment between one's perception of what masculinity should be and how it is perceived by others, with implications for social success and organizational rewards. This is notable given findings from Buonocore et al. highlight the role of age in masculinity beliefs, which could allow for differences in the expectations of early-career employees and their more experienced leaders. Such considerations related to how young men's sensemaking of masculinity is influenced by workplace norms and how they navigate masculinity-related group norms that are discrepant with their own beliefs may be particularly illuminating.Underlying several of these manuscripts (e.g. Mojzisch and Roswag, 2026) is the premise that masculine expectations drive career motivations. While this is undoubtedly relevant for employees who are men, the framing of the workplace as rooted in masculinity extends these same concerns to those from other genders, such as women and non-binary individuals. Following the calls from Klarsfeld et al. (2026), an intersectional approach must be taken to best understand how masculinity impacts those from various groups, and this should not be limited to men. Indeed, illuminating research could be crafted that examines how individuals whose prescribed gender differs from traditional masculinity are able to enact masculinity to achieve workplace success. Furthermore, this research could explore the multidimensionality of masculinity, including how different aspects of masculinity intersect with other identities beyond gender (e.g. Sawyer et al., 2013; Wong and Wang, 2022). Moreover, this line of research should consider how individuals navigate varying gendered expectations in ways that do not put one at odds with their prescribed gendered expectations, potentially leaving one vulnerable to backlash (Phelan and Rudman, 2010) that may lessen the gains made through alignment with these masculine ideals.As parts of society become more egalitarian and others stay rooted in traditional gender norms and expectations, the future of work and family will be increasingly complex. This special issue adds to the growing literature examining men and masculinity in careers, with a range of articles using different methodological approaches to understand how masculinity is related to work and family. We look forward to exploring the theoretical advancements, new research and ongoing conversations that will be sparked by the literature included here.* Denotes that authors contributed equally to the special issue and are listed alphabetically.
Regina et al. (Sat,) studied this question.