'Quotas are disrupting meritocracy' and other gender diversity misconceptions.
With much progress underway in organisational commitment to diversity, it is easy to overlook persistent shortcomings of the movement towards gender equality. While McKinsey&Co. (2016) report that '75% of CEOs include gender equality in their top 10 business priorities', outcomes are scarcely changing; several misconceptions may limit the achievement of full equality for women at work.
Misconception #1
"You can't have a gender quota and always hire the best person for the job."
You absolutely can, and you should. Research conducted by Besley (2013) found that implementation of a gender quota increased the merits of men, while those of female members remained stable. Rather than replacing men with less qualified women, the quota saw 'mediocre men' withdraw, leaving only the most merited men remaining. Further dismissing dreaded 'tokenism', vast research has also highlighted that increasing female representation in a group will boost team performance. In a study of 192 teams, Woolley and Malone (2011) found that groups with higher individual IQs did not show increased collective intelligence, while those with higher percentages of women did.
It is important to note that the study separates the benefits of intelligence from those of female inclusion; the advantages of female representation include higher sensitivity to social cues, superior problem solving, as well as increased equality of contribution from all team members. If you're still not convinced that quotas aren't just PC-gone-mad efforts against male talent, turn your attention to the Executive Committees of FTSE 350 in 2020. While ExCos with no women achieved 1.5% net profit margins (down from 6.1% in 2019), a 25% female population or higher increased these margins 7-fold. If equality can't talk, money certainly will.
Misconception #2
"It isn't about gender, he's just better for the job."
Of course, all things being equal, a male individual can be best suited to a given role. The reality is, unfortunately, a far cry from equality. It is surely unlikely, for example, that of the 350 largest British PLCs, only 17 women were suited to the CEO role versus their male counterpart? And, if this is legitimately the case, it is perhaps fair to assume that such discrepancies are born from a system favouring male success? Evidence from the European Commission (2008) suggests that women are less likely to be promoted into highest leadership roles, owing to comparatively less 'sponsorship,' as well as the differences in expectation placed on women by the 'attainment trap.'
While a Catalyst (2008) report revealed that women receive comparable mentoring, lack of 'sponsor' roles distinguish these relationships from those of their male colleagues. McKinsey&Co. (2019) establish the difference between a mentor's knowledge, often provided to women, and a sponsor's influence, more frequently afforded to male employees. Harvard Business Review (2010) concur that high-potential women are over-mentored and under-sponsored as compared to their male counterparts, consequently reducing appointment to top roles and reducing confidence to apply for such positions.
The 'attainment trap' refers to the phenomenon where women are judged on their attainment and current performance, while men are considered for 'stretch roles' due to perceived potential. In a brilliant example of these warped expectations, The Times (2018) presents the case of an all-male board rejecting their own CVs, disguised with female names, on the basis of lacking experience. Can we truly assess who is 'best for the job' while expectations for men and women differ so strongly? And can we reasonably anticipate that women will be fit for high level jobs if they are continually denied the leverage afforded to their male coworkers?
Misconception #3
"Women are in less senior roles because of maternity leave/ familial commitments."
Studies by Myatt (2007), Broughton and Miller (2009) and the Journal of Management Development (2010) suggest that female professionals are at a disadvantage in organisational advancement, regardless of their parental responsibilities. Hindrances to female promotion include comparatively vague or lacking feedback; entrenched and male-dominated worker-ideals; and the unconscious 'similarity concept' reelecting male leaders. McKinsey&Co. (2016) reported that, despite asking for feedback as often as their male peers, of 34,000 individuals, only 36% of women claimed to receive feedback 'sometimes', 'often' or 'very often,' versus 46% of men. Furthermore, The Center for Talent Innovation finds that women are 32% less likely to receive feedback from male superiors than their male colleagues. The necessity of rigorous feedback in strengthening leadership and other capabilities cannot be overstated; the Leadership Research Institute call attention to this handicap to female progression.
When women receive feedback on achieving leadership status, typically male attributes are often promoted to the employee, despite potential contradiction with her personality or the enduring expectation of her femininity. A common example of this Catch-22 scenario is the expectation of an assertive and dominant leader, frequently viewed in women as abrasive or brusque. Harvard Business Review found that, of individuals with feedback deeming them 'too aggressive', 76% were female and only 24% male. Meanwhile, a softer and more 'feminine' stance is not taken seriously and will often forfeit senior promotions (Catalyst, 2011).
The innately human 'similarity concept' further derails a 'level playing field' as individuals subconsciously gravitate towards those similar to themselves. Subsequently, without practicing self awareness and correction, male leaders may appoint or support other men, favouring them without due merit against female candidates.
In conclusion
As gender equality is increasingly placed on employers' radar, it is more important than ever to recognise that a tick-box or two does not constitute diversity. In fact, tokenism can be particularly isolating for minority team members who feel undervalued and unheard. The key to positive diversity is provision of equal opportunity throughout employment, while recognising and celebrating the differences of team members; these are what will bring innovation and new ways of thinking! Understanding the way in which we recruit, retain, and feedback to team members can ensure equitable distribution of responsibility. What's more, understanding the enduring systems created for men, by men, can assist in counteracting entrenched bias currently faced by women throughout their professional lives. It is long overdue that the accepted 'ideal worker' expires, replaced by variety, fairness and the financial success to match.
References
Catalyst Report (2011) Sponsoring Women to Success
McKinsey and Company (2016) Women in the Workplace.
The Pipeline (2020) Women Count. Role, value, and number of female executives in the FTSE 350.
The Times (2018) Why are Men More Likely to be Promoted than Women?