And to finish it off, we pass the mic over to the brilliant and inspiring Ashara Ekundayo speaking at Impact Hub Oakland about the topic that she knows best…. About us. Work with us. Impact Blog. Privacy Policy. Follow us. Partner with initiatives who are already reducing inequalities Quite often the older the company, the more antiquated its structure is. Inclusive and sustainable innovation at scale.
This website uses cookies including Google Analytics cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read Privacy Policy. Diverse workforces and inclusive workplaces can boost performance, lead to greater innovation and better problem solving, improve productivity and engage employees.
Diversity and inclusion experts EW Group take us through what makes Black History Month so important and how celebrating it in the workplace can really make a difference. How a cross-sector group of organisations are joining the campaign to diversify business and why your firm should sign up and join them.
Read how trust, communication and responsibility will be integral to a successful return to office that enables everyone to thrive and succeed. Combatting workplace inequality: the intersectional approach. Key questions for businesses to consider can include : How can a joined-up approach to addressing inequality be achieved right across a firm? How can businesses communicate the great work being done that does more than highlight individual stories or achievements?
Diversity and inclusion can also be better promoted and practiced. Studies have shown diversity to positively impact financial performance based on strong employee engagement, access to better talent, and inclusive decision-making. Watch Your Language. Stereotyping and careless language can make some people uncomfortable and they may claim discrimination, even if it was never your intention.
For example, a 'clean-cut' hair requirement might sound prejudiced against those wearing their hair long for religious reasons. Have Clear Objective Criteria. Group decision-making is a good practice for ensuring impartiality.
And if issues or conflicts arise, it's helpful to conduct audits on the individuals or teams involved. Practice Good Communication. Miscommunication often comes in the form of errors of omission, especially among employees who were misinformed about company policies, business processes, or job functions.
Speak up when you think something is wrong in the workplace, especially when it concerns inequality. Ask for Advice.
Speaking up is crucial, especially in making major decisions like terminating contracts, as sensitive issues may arise. Diversity and inclusion must be embraced and actively promoted every day.
For more success strategies in business and entrepreneurship or to learn how to balance work and family with ease, check out additional Heartmanity resources at Mompreneurs or HeartLead programs.
Yet over time, given cognitive dissonance Festinger, , it is likely that discriminatory behavior could induce attitude change among organizational decision makers to become more sexist. Thus, it may appear that we have created a model that is closed and determinate in nature; however, this would be a misinterpretation. In the following section, we outline how organizations marked by gender inequalities can reduce discrimination against women.
The model we present for understanding gender discrimination in HR practices is complex. We believe that such complexity is necessary to accurately reflect the realities of organizational life. The model demonstrates that many sources of gender inequality are inter-related and have reciprocal effects.
By implication, there are no simple or direct solutions to reduce gender discrimination in organizations. Rather, this complex problem requires multiple solutions. In fact, as discussed by Gelfand et al. Therefore, we outline below how organizations can reduce gender discrimination by focusing on a HR policies i. Organizations can take steps to mitigate discrimination in HR policies.
As a first example, let us consider how an organization can develop, within its HR systems, diversity initiatives aimed at changing the composition of the workforce that includes policies to recruit, retain, and develop employees from underrepresented groups Jayne and Dipboye, Diversity initiatives can operate like affirmative action programs in that organizations track and monitor a the number of qualified candidates from different groups e.
When the proportion of candidates from a group successfully selected varies significantly from their proportion in the qualified pool then action, such as targeted recruitment efforts, needs to be taken.
Importantly, such efforts to increase diversity can be strengthened by other HR policies that reward managers, who select more diverse personnel, with bonuses Jayne and Dipboye, Organizations that incorporate diversity-based criteria into their performance and promotion policies and offer meaningful incentives to managers to identify and develop successful female candidates for promotion are more likely to succeed in retaining and promoting diverse talent Murphy and Cleveland, ; Cleveland et al.
Rather, to be successful, HR policies for diversity need to be supported by the other organizational structures, processes, and practices, such as strategy, leadership, and climate. For instance, diversity initiatives should be linked to strategies to create a business case for diversity Jayne and Dipboye, An organization with a strategy to market to more diverse populations can justify that a more diverse workforce can better serve potential clientele Jayne and Dipboye, Alternatively, an organization that is attempting to innovate and grow might justify a corporate strategy to increase diversity on the grounds that diverse groups have multiple perspectives on a problem with the potential to generate more novel, creative solutions van Knippenberg et al.
Furthermore, organizational leaders must convey strong support for the HR policies for them to be successful Rynes and Rosen, Finally, diversity programs are more likely to succeed in multicultural organizations with strong climates for diversity Elsass and Graves, ; Jayne and Dipboye, In organizations where employees perceive a strong climate for diversity, diversity programs result in greater employee attraction and retention among women and minorities, at all levels of the organization Cox and Blake, ; Martins and Parsons, Work-family conflict is a type of role conflict that workers experience when the demands e.
Work-family conflict has the negative consequences of increasing employee stress, illness-related absence, and desire to turnover Grandey and Cropanzano, Importantly, women are more adversely affected by work-family conflict than men Martins et al.
Work-family conflict can be exacerbated by HR policies that evaluate employees based on face time i. Formal family friendly HR policies can be adopted to relieve work-family conflict directly, which differentially assists women in the workplace. For instance, to reduce work-family conflict, organizations can implement HR policies such as flexible work arrangements, which involve flexible schedules, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, job-shares, and part-time work Galinsky et al.
In conjunction with other family friendly policies, such as the provision of childcare, elderly care, and paid maternity leave, organizations can work to reduce stress and improve the retention of working mothers Burke, Unfortunately, it has been found that the enactment of flexible work policies can still lead to discrimination.
To circumvent this, organizations need to formalize HR policies relating to flexible work arrangements Kelly and Kalev, For instance, formal, written policies should articulate who can adopt flexible work arrangements e. When the details of such policies are formally laid out, organizational decision makers have less latitude and therefore less opportunity for discrimination in granting access to these arrangements.
To be successful, family friendly HR policies should be tied to other organizational structures, processes, and practices such as organizational strategy, leadership, culture, and climate. A business case for flexible work arrangements can be made because they attract and retain top-talent, which includes women Baltes et al.
Furthermore, organizational leaders must convey strong support for family friendly programs Jayne and Dipboye, Leaders can help bolster the acceptance of family friendly policies through successive interactions, communications, visibility, and role modeling with employees.
Family friendly HR policies must also be supported by simultaneously changing the underlying organizational culture that promotes face time.
In summary, HR policies must be supported by other organizational structures, processes, and practices in order for these policies to be effective. Adopting HR diversity initiative policies and family friendly policies can reduce gender discrimination and reshape the other organizational structures, processes, and practices and increase gender equality in them.
Specifically, such policies, if successful, should increase the number of women in all departments and at all levels of an organization. Further, having more women in leadership positions signals to organizational members that the organization takes diversity seriously, affecting the diversity climate of the organization, and ultimately its culture Konrad et al.
Thus, particular HR policies can reduce gender inequalities in all of the other organizational structures, processes, and practices. A wealth of research demonstrates that an effective means of reducing personal bias by organizational decision makers in HR practices is to develop HR policies that standardize and objectify performance data e.
To reduce discrimination in personnel decisions i. This ensures that expectations about characteristics of the ideal employee for that position are based on accurate knowledge of the job and not gender stereotypes about the job Welle and Heilman, To reduce discrimination in performance evaluations, HR policies should necessitate the use of reliable measures based on explicit objective performance expectations and apply these practices consistently across all worker evaluations Bernardin et al.
These evaluations should be done regularly, given that delays require retrieving memories of work performance and this process can be biased by gender stereotypes Sanchez and De La Torre, Finally, if greater gender differences are found on selection tests than on performance evaluations, then the use of such biased selection tests needs to be revisited Chung-Yan and Cronshaw, Importantly, the level of personal discrimination enacted by organizational decision makers can be reduced by formalizing HR policies, and by controlling the situations under which HR-related decisions are made.
We have articulated how HR-related decisions involve social cognition and are therefore susceptible to biases introduced by the use of gender stereotypes. This can occur unwittingly by those who perceive themselves to be unprejudiced but who are affected by stereotypes or negative automatic associations nonetheless Chugh, ; Son Hing et al.
For instance, when HR policies do not rely on objective criteria, and the context for evaluation is ambiguous, organizational decision makers will draw on gender and other stereotypes to fill in the blanks when evaluating candidates Heilman, , Importantly, the context can be constructed in such a way as to reduce these biases.
For instance, organizational decision makers will make less biased judgments of others if they have more time available to evaluate others, are less cognitively busy Martell, , have higher quality of information available about candidates, and are accountable for justifying their ratings and decisions Kulik and Bainbridge, ; Roberson et al.
Thus, if they have the time, motivation, and opportunity to make well-informed, more accurate judgments, then discrimination in performance ratings can be reduced.
Another means to reduce gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and enactment is to focus directly on reducing the hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs of organizational decision makers.
Interventions aimed at reducing these beliefs typically involve diversity training, such as a seminar, course, or workshop. Such training involves one or more sessions that involve interactive discussions, lectures, and practical assignments. During the training men and women are taught about sexism and how gender roles in society are socially constructed.
Investigations have shown these workshop-based interventions are effective at reducing levels of hostile sexism but have inconsistent effects on benevolent sexism Case, ; de Lemus et al. The subtle, and in some ways positive nature of benevolent sexism makes it difficult to confront and reduce using such interventions. However, levels of benevolent sexism are reduced when individuals are explicitly informed about the harmful implications of benevolent sexism Becker and Swim, Unfortunately, these interventions have not been tested in organizational settings.
So their efficacy in the field is unknown. Gender inequality in organizations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in HR practices i. We propose that gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and the enactment of HR practices stems from gender inequalities in broader organizational structures, processes, and practices, including HR policy but also leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and organizational climate. Moreover, reciprocal effects should occur, such that discriminatory HR practices can perpetuate gender inequalities in organizational leadership, structure, strategy, culture, and climate.
Organizational decision makers also play an important role in gender discrimination. While hostile sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to keep them from positions of power, benevolent sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to protect them.
Thus, a focus on organizational structure, processes, and practices is critical. The model we have developed extends previous work by Gelfand et al. Gelfand et al. First, we differ from their work by emphasizing that workplace discrimination is most directly attributable to HR practices.
Consequently, we emphasize how inequalities in other organizational structures, processes, and practices affect institutional discrimination in HR policy. Second, our model differs from that of Gelfand et al. The attitudes of these decision makers toward specific groups of employees are critical. However, the nature of prejudice differs depending on the target group Son Hing and Zanna, Therefore, we focus on one form of bias—sexism—in the workplace.
Doing so, allows us to draw on more nuanced theories of prejudice, namely ambivalent sexism theory Glick and Fiske, Thus, third, our model differs from the work of Gelfand et al. Fourth, we differ from Gelfand et al. However, the model we have developed is not meant to be exhaustive. There are multiple issues that we have not addressed but should be considered: what external factors feed into our model?
What other links within the model might arise? What are the limits to its generalizability? What consequences derive from our model? How can change occur given a model that is largely recursive in nature? We focus on these issues throughout our conclusion. In this paper, we have illustrated what we consider to be the dominant links in our model; however, additional links are possible. First, we do not lay out the factors that feed into our model, such as government regulations, the economy, their competitors, and societal culture.
In future work, one could analyze the broader context that organizations operate in, which influences its structures, processes, and practices, as well as its members. For instance, in societies marked by greater gender inequalities, the levels of hostile and benevolent sexism of organizational decision makers will be higher Glick et al. Second, there is no link demonstrating how organizational decision makers who are more sexist have the capacity, even if they sit lower in the organizational hierarchy, to influence the amount of gender inequality in organizational structures, processes, and practices.
The ability of people to act in line with their attitudes depends on the strength of the constraints in the social situation and the broader context Lewin, , Thus, if organizational structures, processes, and practices clearly communicate the importance of gender equality then the discriminatory behavior of sexist organizational decision makers should be constrained.
Accordingly, organizations should take steps to mitigate institutional discrimination by focusing on organizational structures, processes, and practices rather than focusing solely on reducing sexism in individual employees. In other words, lifestyle preferences could contribute to gender differences in the workplace. Gender imbalances e. For instance, research has uncovered that women with professional degrees leave the labor force at roughly three times the rate of men Baker, Our model is derived largely from research that has been conducted in male-dominated organizations; however, we speculate that it should hold for female-dominated organizations.
There is evidence that tokenism does not work against men in terms of their promotion potential in female-dominated environments. Rather, there is some evidence for a glass-escalator effect for men in female-dominated fields, such as nursing, and social work Williams, In addition, regardless of the gender composition of the workplace, men are advantaged, compared with women in terms of earnings and wage growth Budig, Finally, even in female-dominated professions, segregation along gender lines occurs in organizational structure Snyder and Green, Thus, the literature suggests that our model should hold for female-dominated environments.
Some might question if our model assumes that organizational decision makers enacting HR practices are men. It does not. There is evidence that decision makers who are women also discriminate against women e.
Further, although men are higher in hostile sexism, compared with women Glick et al. More importantly, the effects of hostile and benevolent sexism are not moderated by participant gender Masser and Abrams, ; Salvaggio et al. Thus, those who are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism respond in a more discriminatory manner, regardless of whether they are men or women.
Thus, organizational decision makers, regardless of their sex, should discriminate more against women in HR practices when they are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism. In future work, the consequences of our model for women discriminated against in HR practices should be considered.
The negative ramifications of sexism and discrimination on women are well known: physical and psychological stress, worse physical health e.
However, how might these processes differ depending on the proximal cause of the discrimination? In order for the potential stressor of stigmatization to lead to psychological and physical stress it must be seen as harmful and self-relevant Son Hing, Thus, if institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices are completely hidden then discrimination might not cause stress reactions associated with stigmatization because it may be too difficult for women to detect Crosby et al.
In contrast, women should be adversely affected by stigmatization in instances where gender discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices is more evident.
For instance, greater perceptions of discrimination are associated with lower self-esteem in longitudinal studies Schmitt et al. We do not believe this to be true. One potential impetus for organizations to become more egalitarian may be some great shock such as sex-based discrimination lawsuits that the organization either faces directly or sees its competitors suffer.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Crop, et al. Discrimination lawsuits are time consuming and costly James and Wooten, , resulting in lower shares, lower public perceptions, higher absenteeism, and higher turnover Wright et al.
Expensive lawsuits experienced either directly or indirectly should act as a big driver in the need for change. Furthermore, individual women can work to avoid stigmatization.
Women in the workplace are not simply passive targets of stereotyping processes. People belonging to stigmatized groups can engage in a variety of anti-stigmatization techniques, but their response options are constrained by the cultural repertoires available to them Lamont and Mizrachi, For instance, it might be unimaginable for a woman to file a complaint of sexual harassment if she knows that complaints are never taken seriously. Individuals do negotiate stigmatization processes; however, this is more likely when stigmatization is perceived as illegitimate and when they have the resources to do so Major and Schmader, Thus, at an individual level, people engage in strategies to fight being discriminated against but these strategies are likely more constrained for those who are most stigmatized.
Finally, possibly the most efficacious way for organizational members men and women to challenge group-based inequality and to improve the status of women as a whole is to engage in collective action e. People are most likely to engage in collective action when they perceive group differences as underserved or illegitimate Wright, Such a sense of relative deprivation involves feelings of injustice and anger that prompt a desire for wide scale change van Zomeren et al.
Interestingly, people are more likely to experience relative deprivation when inequalities have begun to be lessened, and thus their legitimacy questioned Crosby, ; Kawakami and Dion, ; Stangor et al. Therefore, changes to mitigate gender inequalities within any organizational structure, policy, or practice could start a cascade of transformations leading to a more equal organization for men and women.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Son Hing. Abrams, K. Social construction, roving biologism, and reasonable women: a response to Professor Epstein.
DePaul Law Rev. Google Scholar. Acker, J. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Adamitis, E. Appearance matters: a proposal to prohibit appearance discrimination in employment. Law Rev. Adler, N. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychol. Baker, J. The influx of women into legal professions: an economic analysis.
Labor Rev. Baltes, B. Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: a meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Banyard, V. Reducing sexual violence on campus: the role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. Barling, J. Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace sexual harassment.
Baxter, J. The glass ceiling hypothesis: a comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Beaton, A. Neosexism among male managers: is it a matter of numbers? Becker, J. Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Yet another dark side of chivalry: benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change.
Begany, J. Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Men Masc. Berdhal, J. The sexual harassment of uppity women. Berger, J. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers. Berger and M. Bernardin, H. Bianchi, S. Maternal employment and time with children: dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography 47, — Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor.
Forces 79, — Biernat, M. The language of performance evaluations: gender-based shifts in content and consistency of judgment. Aggression among university employees. Blau, F. New evidence on gender differences in promotion rates: an empirical analysis of a sample of new hires. Bobocel, R. Justice-based opposition to social policies: is it genuine?
Boldry, J. Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Issues 57, — Borrel, C. Perceived sexism as a health determinant in Spain. Womens Health 19, — Branscombe, N.
Brass, D. Budig, M. Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: who rides the glass escalator? Burke, R. Organizational values, job experiences and satisfactions among managerial and professional women and men: advantage men?
Women Manag. Cable, D. Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Case, K.
0コメント