Hybrid review highlights maternal wall bias themes in organizations, suggesting areas for future research.
Maternal Wall Bias (MWB) is a significant factor that hampers the progress of working mothers; however, studies on this issue are scattered across various fields. This research aims to systematically present the evolving landscape of MWB research, identify its core themes, and highlight areas that require further investigation. The study employs a hybrid review method that combines bibliometric analysis with the Theory-Context-Characteristics-Methodology (TCCM) framework, following the SPAR-4-SLR protocol. A total of 79 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2001 and February 2025 were identified from the Scopus database. Bibliometric techniques, including publication trends, co-citation analysis, and thematic mapping, were conducted using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer, followed by a structured synthesis using the TCCM framework. The findings show that MWB research has evolved around three dominant streams: organizational and institutional barriers, career and earnings penalties associated with motherhood, and cultural stereotypes and organizational norms that affect mothers’ evaluations. The thematic map highlights recurring concerns such as gender disparities, socio-economic pressures, childcare constraints, work–family conflict, flexibility stigma, and leadership barriers. The TCCM analysis indicates a firm reliance on human capital and stereotype-based explanations, while organizational, institutional, and intersectional perspectives remain underdeveloped. The review provides a more comprehensive and precise evidence base for organizations and policymakers to reassess workplace systems, HR practices, and norms that may indirectly disadvantage working mothers. By integrating bibliometric mapping with the TCCM framework, this study offers a comprehensive picture of MWB research and identifies areas requiring further investigation in business and management contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anand et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: