Martin Fabro and Chris MacDonald* say leaders have many ways to advance women in their workforce, but choosing the right strategy can be difficult, so they set out the best practices.
There’s been a lot of talk about gender diversity lately.
Unfortunately, too much of it has been just that — talk.
What can organisations do when they decide to move from talking to acting?
We decided to look at some of the most common individual practices that organisations are implementing to see which have empirical evidence to back them up.
Such practices may have two different types of goals: to actively improve gender diversity (and in particular to increase the number of women in leadership roles), and to reduce underlying gender bias and discriminatory attitudes.
Diversity training
An oldie but a goodie (or is it?), this one is particularly tricky.
Diversity training has been around since at least the early 1990s, and has been one of the most commonly implemented diversity practices ever since.
Despite its popularity, some have argued that diversity training may not be effective and, in some cases, it can do more harm than good — if, for example, it engenders resentment rather than understanding.
But evidence is mixed, so most authors agree the specifics of the situation are the main determinant of success.
Things like the specific content of the training, its length, whether training is voluntary or mandatory, and the constellation of other diversity practices implemented by the organisation.
Employee resource groups
Employee resource groups (ERGs) are groups of employees that function as a resource for members of such groups but also for organisations as a whole.
In addition to functioning as support groups, ERGs may help employees gain access to a broader network, to mentors, to training programs, and so on.
Relying on the fact that we tend to gravitate towards people similar to us, ERGs provide employees with the chance to connect with other members and feel better represented and engaged in the organisation.
An ESG may also be a way for the organisation to tap a larger pool of candidates for leadership roles.
In the large literature devoted to ERGs, the majority of authors agree on the positive impact ERGs have for employees and organisations.
Flexible work arrangements
Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are widespread across industries and come in many different forms.
Various strategies are adopted to attract, retain, and engage talent, and of course, to foster diversity, especially gender diversity.
A thoughtful approach to FWAs and family support is imperative if organisations want to empower women.
FWAs help reduce the negative impact of the mid-career conflict often faced by women who are considering becoming mothers.
But as promising as FWAs are, research shows they are powerful inclusion tools only as long as there is support from leadership and especially from supervisors.
FWAs also need to be available for everybody in the organisation.
Their details need to be negotiable, and FWA policies must be effectively communicated across the organisation.
Sponsorship/mentorship programs
Almost every large organisation has some form of mentorship program.
Less often, however, are these also sponsorship programs.
Sponsorship and mentorship are two different things and, as such, they have different impacts.
A mentor is a more experienced and knowledgeable person who coaches and teaches their mentee.
A sponsor is someone who also uses their position and influence within an organisation to advocate for their protégé’s success and professional growth.
The evidence seems to be that they benefit everyone: the mentees/protégés, the mentors/sponsors, and the organisation.
However, these programs do not seem to benefit men and women equally.
Some research suggests women tend to get more mentoring but less sponsorship than male counterparts.
Furthermore, men’s sponsors tend to be in more senior roles than women’s, which implies the ability to help their protégés more.
So, while mentorship and sponsorship seem promising, the way in which they are executed matters a lot.
Usually a mentor eventually becomes a sponsor.
If this is true, something is preventing women’s mentors from making that leap and becoming sponsors.
It wouldn’t be a surprise if gender bias had something to do with it.
Quotas
Few practices aimed at fostering gender diversity have generated as much controversy as the establishment of quotas.
There is research supporting arguments both for and against quotas, both practically and ethically.
From a practical point of view, the implication is that successful implementation of quotas will rely on specific internal and external factors.
Those who fear this practice argue that forcing the inclusion of a set number or proportion of women could be perceived as unfair by men, creating friction.
It may also put those women under a spotlight and leave them stigmatised.
Critics also suggest that quotas may increase organisational cynicism and do little to help the deeply rooted issues of gender bias and discrimination.
Supporters, however, argue there are ways to offset these threats, and the benefits of quotas outweigh any concern.
In fact, one study showed that quotas tend to face resistance only in those countries without them.
Others have argued there is a threshold effect.
When the quota is over 40 per cent, the threat of women being stigmatised ends up being neutralised: it’s much harder to stigmatise half your board or workforce than it is to treat the sole woman as a token.
Research from Australia also supports quotas as a way to achieve significant results and to seize the benefits of gender diversity in decision-making.
Much more remains to be said, but these are some of the key practical steps available to organisations.
Many different combinations of steps can help.
There can be many different “right answers”, as long as there is a genuine intention on the part of leaders to make progress on the issue.
The degree to which these practices help to create an inclusive culture will depend more on the people executing them than on the practices themselves.
Without a full commitment from management and a genuine effort to eradicate gender bias and discrimination from the organisation’s culture, no one practice or combination of practices will have the desired effect.
* Martin Fabro is a Research Associate at the Ted Rogers Leadership Centre at Ryerson University in Toronto. Chris MacDonald is Director of the Ted Rogers Leadership Centre.
This article first appeared at www.canadianbusiness.com.
