Gender
equality at work: Avoiding the overly optimistic trap
The
US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, effectively denying
millions of women access to abortions, has delivered a disturbing message about
the frailty of women's fundamental rights.
This
decision has served as a powerful reminder that development is fragmented and
many countries have not advanced as far as some might have thought despite the
rhetoric about gender equity in a variety of contexts.
This
includes numerous companies where the diversity and inclusivity agenda is
acknowledged, but where results are still sporadic and its emphasis is despised
by many employees, particularly men.
According
to Michelle Ryan, director of the Global Institute for Women's Leadership at
ANU, the delusion that this struggle has already been won is a major barrier to
advancement in the workplace.
In
many places of the world, including North America, things are not good.
When
I look at what's going on in the US, it's not only that; we are regressing as
well. The gradual elimination of women's rights has continued for 18 months
since Trump took office, she claims.
We
must remain watchful and cannot allow anybody to claim that everything has been
resolved... There is severe global stagnation right now.
In
fact, assessments of representation in boardrooms, movies, and different
professions reveal that men and women regularly overestimate women's
representation, as Ryan explained in a recent essay on the subject of Nature.
In
one of the studies Ryan worked on, it was discovered that veterinarians who
believed sexism was no longer an issue in their field were most likely to pay
female staff members less than their male colleagues and provide them with less
career possibilities.
According
to another study, men who overestimated the number of women working in medicine
were the least likely to support programmes promoting gender equality.
The
essay demonstrates that those who think that women are overrepresented are the
most sexist.
The
emphasis on quantity rather than quality and "fixing" women are two
additional typical pitfalls that appear in all types of organisations and
frequently thwart or stall growth.
While
tracking and reporting the number of women employed by a company and at all
levels is crucial, it is insufficient.
At
this point, when there are several requests for evidence, she says, "there
is a need to be able to quantify what we can have as targets and for Workplace
Gender Equality Agency reporting."
The
report card's tendency to use statistics as a compliance or box-ticking method,
which is a minimal degree of activity, is the problem.
"I
can understand why it's necessary, but it's a first step that needs to be taken
and gives people permission to declare we've hit 50 per cent," the speaker
said.
Tracking
numbers by themselves might not be able to reveal hidden impediments. She
continues, "Simple counts obscure differences in quality and the
experience of women."
There
are a lot of women working in areas where women predominate, but they also have
a lot of issues with salary and working conditions.
According
to the renowned "Glass Cliff" study published 15 years ago by Ryan
and her colleagues, women are more likely to be chosen for leadership positions
that are dangerous or doomed to failure. The "poison chalice" effect
also applied to areas other than business.
According
to Ryan, the key concern was whether women were receiving the same quality of
promotions as males. This issue is now relevant as organisations deal with a
pandemic, rising costs, and widening cultural divides.
Additionally,
there has been an excessive focus on healing women as opposed to tackling
systemic change. Focusing on mentoring or educating a small number of senior
women may well benefit that cohort, but bias still exists.
"The
way I would put it is that mentoring definitely benefit some people but not
others. There is no systemic change as a result. The privileged are the ones
who profit, but if the system isn't changed, it won't be sustainable, thus the
organisation must keep implementing it in order to effect change.
And
it ignores women who are weak. In psychology, we discuss a person's capacity
for long-term transformation. Being among other women is wonderful, and
although things appear to be changing, they aren't.
Additionally,
women are given additional coaching to help them overcome "impostor
syndrome," develop their leadership abilities and raise their confidence
and ambition.
Ryan
writes, "But the data is plain. "Embedded systems of inequality need
repair, not women," the author said.
Ryan
gives an example, saying that while women don't necessarily lack ambition or
confidence, their experiences in unequal working settings might undermine their
self-confidence. Being treated differently from male classmates and lacking
role models are examples of this.
In
a similar vein, Ryan argues that women are not fundamentally risk-averse;
rather, they function in systems that reward men for taking risks but penalise
women for the same actions.
For
a few previously fortunate women, these specifically targeted interventions, at
most, offer a temporary solution. In the worst-case scenario, they support the
success and leadership presumptions that underpin structural gender inequality.
More
than ever, deliberate actions and well-defined objectives are required to
guarantee improved outcomes for women, regardless of their occupation or
industry. Ryan says that this might involve increasing the visibility and voice
of women as well as holding top leaders accountable for the advancement of
gender equality by monitoring wages, promotions, and job experiences.
Additionally,
it concerns the funding of comprehensive gender equality measures.
There
is no time to unwind because Australia's growth has halted on many fronts.
The
deterioration of women's rights in the US serves as a reminder of how furiously
this fight still rages and of the suffragettes' plea for never-ending
vigilance.