Research objectives and hypothesis/research questions:
The aim of the study was to assess the impact of selected barriers on the career development of women belonging to Generation Y (born between 1980 and 1994) and Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2010). The following research hypotheses were formulated: H1: The most significant barriers hindering women’s career development include pay discrimination as well as stereotypes and prejudices against women. H2: Demographic variables have a significant impact on the research results, and the differences between the analyzed groups are statistically significant.

Research methods:
The study was conducted using the CAWI technique (Computer Assisted Web Interview). The research tool was an original questionnaire, made available in electronic form. The data collection process lasted from March 15 to April 24, 2024. The sample was selected purposefully and included only women from Generation Y and Generation Z who were professionally active or had previous work experience. After the data collection phase, all questionnaires were checked for completeness, then coded and subjected to statistical analysis using the Statistica 14.0 software. Hypothesis H1 was verified using measures of central tendency and variability, such as arithmetic mean (x̅), median (Me), mode (D), and coefficient of variation (V). To verify hypothesis H2, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied.

Main results:
The results of the statistical analysis partially confirmed the first research hypothesis (H1), which assumed that the most significant barriers hindering women’s career development are pay discrimination and gender-based stereotypes and prejudices. While these barriers were indeed rated as highly significant, other top-rated factors included lack of professional experience, insufficient support from the employer, and low self-confidence. These findings indicate that women’s career trajectories are shaped both by institutional conditions and internal beliefs and perceptions of competence. The second hypothesis (H2), which assumed that demographic variables significantly differentiate the evaluation of barriers, was only partially confirmed. Regarding generational affiliation, the only statistically significant difference was observed for the lack of professional experience, which was rated higher by Generation Z respondents. In the analysis based on the level of education, a statistically significant difference occurred only in relation to the barrier concerning low self-confidence and assertiveness, which was rated higher by women with higher education. In other cases, the differences were neither statistically nor interpretatively significant (low values of effect size r).

Implications for theory and practice:
Further research should expand the scope of the analyzed variables, considering, e.g., family situation, place of residence, employment industry, form of employment contract, professional seniority, or level of social support. It would also be essential to deepen qualitative research that would allow us to capture individual experiences and contexts that are not visible in quantitative analysis. An exciting direction for further analysis may also be to examine how women cope with the identified barriers and what adaptation strategies they use in response to professional difficulties. The results confirm the multidimensionality of barriers to women’s professional development and the need to take supporting measures, both at the systemic level (elimination of discrimination, institutional support) and at the individual level (strengthening the sense of agency, development of soft skills). At the same time, they point to the need for further research that will enable a better understanding of women’s diverse professional experiences and allow them to formulate recommendations that meet their real needs.