|
|
|
|
|
This Update profiles key research and practices that contribute to a better understanding of how to achieve gender balanced leadership in organizations.
Snapshot – Why moving from token representation to critical mass doesn't happen 'naturally' | Affirmative action causes stigma and erodes merit. Fact or fiction? | More on brilliance
|
|
|
Why moving from 10% to 30% representation doesn't happen 'naturally'
In a couple of recent posts, I've explored the areas of women's representation in politics and on boards, and have been pondering why achieving a critical mass of women seems so challenging. Here's a summary of the three key barriers to critical mass.
1. Token numbers lead to complacency and stall progress
The existence of women in token numbers creates a belief that the glass ceiling has been breached. ‘Token practices’ lead to a form of complacency – women perceive that as long as one woman has made it, their own mobility is possible. Once at least 10% of board members are women, men also view hiring practices as equally fair to men and women.
Even where the number of women in senior roles doesn’t change over time, women still tend to believe that hiring is fair and view their organizations as providing them equal opportunity. Men are aware that they have a greater chance of promotion under token conditions. And under token hiring practices, men feel that their status as the majority is legitimate.
Recent research into the gender balance of the five highest paid executive roles in 1,500 US firms between 1991 and 2011 found that once one woman had been appointed, the chance of a second woman joining this group dropped by about 50%. The researchers had expected to find that the introduction of one woman into this top echelon led to a snowball effect. That did not occur over this 20 year period.
2. Homophily restricts network reach creating gender stall
Networks are the traditional basis for and continue to influence board appointments. Homophily is the tendency to associate with those like ourselves. At token representation levels, the density of the female director network remains subcritical. Token conditions mean that women already in the system can’t develop a strong network that enables them to invite a sufficient number of other women onto boards, and men’s tendency to network with other men means that prevailing conditions don’t change. Without intervention, critical mass cannot be generated: too many boards with no women, and too many boards with token numbers = gender stall.
3. Gender bias limits women’s perceived legitimacy for leadership roles
Leadership continues to be associated with agentic characteristics such as dominance, competitiveness and ambition. The pervasiveness of this set of beliefs means that decisions about legitimate leadership are routinely biased against women and in favour of men. Women face the dilemma of being damned for being competent as leaders, or doomed to support roles when they demonstrate gender-associated warm and communal behaviours.
It is well researched (eg Bhonet et al 2014) that hiring and selection decisions are impacted by unconscious bias based on candidate gender, with males more likely to be selected even where the experience, skills and abilities of male and female candidates are identical.
Targets, quotas and other methods are required to to counter-balance these forces, and achieve critical mass.
|
|
|
|
Affirmative Action, eg quotas and targets, creates stigma and erodes merit.
Fact or fiction?
Affirmative action measures such as quotas and targets are seen to be problematic for many reasons, and perhaps the biggest concern is that women will be selected for roles based on their gender alone. This leads to a double negative - there is a perception that women themselves will suffer the stigma of being in a role under false pretenses, and that merit is eroded leading to a performance deficit as women selected under these conditions are not deemed suitably capable.
What's the evidence for stigma?
Numerous studies led by Heilman and others between the mid-1980s and mid-2000s explored the idea of stigma. Their research showed that women hired and explicitly identified as being hired under affirmative action programs were generally seen to be less competent and less deserving of their positions. This applied even where it could be demonstrated that they were as competent and qualified as male colleagues. (It’s something of a conundrum that women as competent and qualified as male candidates had to be hired through an affirmative action program…)
Both men and women assessed the women described in this way as less capable. The women appointed through these processes themselves held these views, even in the face of contradictory evidence about their competence! They also went on to take less credit for successful outcomes and indicated less interest in continuing in their leadership roles.
More recent meta-analysis of this same databank as well as more recent research creates a more refined view that points to a fundamental problem with how we see affirmative action. Affirmative action is designed to ensure proactive investigation of whether or not equality of opportunity exists, and if it doesn’t, to take steps to eliminate barriers and establish real equality. Quotas and targets are amongst such measures, in recognition that women and men of equal talent and skill tend not to be appointed to roles with the same frequency, as noted above.
The more refined view reinforces the importance of the language we use. Unzueta and his colleagues found that women's self-image benefited generally from affirmative action policies, so long as they did not think they had personally benefited. Other studies have shown that those who benefit from affirmative action recognize the success of such policies, see them as providing them with opportunities, and enjoy working for employers with affirmative action policies. Where women are told their qualifications are high, they do not experience the same negative effects.
In summary then, stigma may well occur under certain conditions, and how women’s success is described is a critical factor. If women are told they have won their role solely because they are women, they are more likely to feel stigma. Where there is a general environment that opportunity is being re-balanced and women move into senior leadership roles, there seems to be no stigma. Where women are told they have won their roles because they are competent and capable, whatever the affirmative action landscape, there appears to be no stigma. (And this happens not just for women, but for any group in the minority, including male nurses working in a predominately female working environment.)
As it is so unlikely that women will be placed in roles solely because they are women, and as long as women are not described as winning roles solely on the basis of their gender, stigma should not be an issue.
Is merit eroded?
Merit is often discussed as if it were an absolute, and as if there were perfect standards and assessment tools that allow raters to make unequivocal judgments about individuals. There is however clear evidence that measures of merit include subjective elements and are influenced by stereotypes. The testing community willingly admits to the challenges of making fair assessments of individuals. Test construction and conditions remain open to bias, and plenty of research supports this. Given that implicit beliefs that associate men with leadership and women with support roles are held at least slightly by the greater majority of the population, it is clear that even those of us with good intentions may not be able to suppress these when we are assessing capability.
And according to Crosby, most people just don’t notice persistent injustices unless they have access to systematic comparative data. At individual decision level, and even within departments, and even by those attuned to such discrepancies, discrimination between different demographic groups isn’t discerned. It is only when reviewing large amounts of aggregated data that compares smaller groupings across a larger collection, eg departments within a large organization, that people are able to detect different patterns in hiring women and men.
Crosby and her colleagues put this down to a fundamentally human need to believe that we live in a just world. When we perceive difference, we would rather put it down to a random quirk than to intention, that is, to discrimination, and so we miss the pattern.
Because observers are not always able to detect unfairness in processes, valid assessment of the merits of women are harder to achieve than valid assessment of the merits of men.
In Crosby’s words, “the main reason to endorse affirmative action … is to reward merit. Without the systematic monitoring of affirmative action, one can maintain the fiction of a meritocracy but will have difficulty establishing and sustaining a true meritocracy”.
What to do:
- Prime women for competence
- Prime others for women's competence
- Take care in choosing assessment methods, and as far as possible structure assessment processes to avoid priming on gender lines
- Increase transparency of the numbers.
|
|
|
|
More on brilliance ... and why more needs to be done to reveal how unconscious choices limit women's careers
As reported recently in The Glasshammer Intel has just launched their first diversity initiative, pledging $300 million to achieve a fully diverse workforce by 2020. CEO Brian Krzanich claims this is just the beginning—during his keynote speech at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, he said, “It’s time to step up and do more. It’s not good enough to say we value diversity.” What a welcome initiative! As is BHP Billiton foundation's contribution of $22m earlier this year, which aims to increase the recruitment of girls into tertiary maths courses and the Victorian government's Inspiring Women in Science grants.
The Glasshammer article provides a reminder of a number of challenges, including the focus on brilliance, which I wrote about earlier this year. And with a comprehensive 2013 report that reviewed STEM participation in Australia identifying that women's participation in STEM has not 'substantially changed' over the past two decades, there is real cause for concern. Women remain 20% of enrollments in engineering and related degrees.
While the report focuses on stereotypes, its main focus is on consciously expressed beliefs held by girls. It doesn't address unconscious beliefs at all, and doesn't focus on the unconscious beliefs of teachers or parents, and how they impact the choices made by girls. Addressing these areas is vital, as I've outlined elsewhere in blogs Why so few women in science?, and 3 ways to help Grace, 9, get her dream job - scientist.
|
|
|
|
Articles and reports of interest
The latest from McKinsey's Women Matter archives, including power, technology and an update on women's representation.
Catalyst's research on inclusion in Australia.
Research report from WGEA on diversity strategy which presents a number of Australian case studies.
|
|
|
Gender Balanced Leadership: An Executive Guide by Karen Morley PhD will help you increase the number of senior women in your organization.
The book profiles leading Australian and international companies, showing what they are doing to increase the number of women in senior leadership roles. It summarizes key international research, identifying what works, and why.
The book identifies critical success factors to help you strategically focus your efforts. Each chapter has practical checklists of workable actions.
Ebook available from iBooks and Amazon and print from a range of booksellers including The Nile.
|
|
|
Within “Gender Balanced Leadership”, you will find a practical guide to help turn your organization around. Peter Wilson, President of AHRI
The “Framework to minimise bias” in the last chapter is a very good addition to tools available to leaders and managers. Helen Conway, former Director of Workplace Gender Equality Agency
…. deeply insightful and well researched, presented in a practical, systematic and logical sequence. This book is a must read for all executives who want a guide to achieving gender balanced leadership and the many resultant benefits it affords. Nicholas Barnett, CEO, Insync Surveys
|
|
|
|
For more information about what you or your organization can do to minimize unconscious gender bias and achieve gender balanced leadership, contact Karen Morley on 0438 215 391 or at kmorley@karenmorley.com.au.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
