[Link]
org/2022/03/research-how-bias-against-women-persists-in-female-dominated-workplaces
Gender
Research: How Bias Against
Women Persists in FemaleDominated Workplaces
by Amy Diehl, Amber L. Stephenson, and Leanne M. Dzubinski
March 02, 2022
Summary.
bashta/Getty Images
New research examines gender bias within four industries with more
female than male workers — law, higher education, faith-based nonprofits, and
health care. Having balanced or even greater numbers of women in an organization
is not, by itself, changing women’s...
It’s been thought that once industries achieve gender balance,
bias will decrease and gender gaps will close. Sometimes called
the “add women and stir” approach, people tend to think that
more
having more women present is all that’s needed to promote
change. But simply adding women into a workplace does not
change the organizational structures and systems that benefit
men more than women. Our new research (to be published in a
forthcoming issue of Personnel Review) shows gender bias is still
prevalent in gender-balanced and female-dominated industries.
Most gender bias research has focused on male-dominated
industries like STEM or law enforcement, where women’s
experiences of bias and discrimination may be more apparent.
Our research is unique in that it examines gender bias in four
industries with more female than male workers: law, higher
education, faith-based nonprofits, and health care. In these four
industries, women dominate. They make up 53.5% of the
workforce in law, 55.3% in higher education, 63.8% in faith-based
nonprofits, and 77.6% in health care. Using the Gender Bias Scale
for Women Leaders along with open-ended questions, we
compared perceptions and experiences of gender bias for 1,606
women leaders in these fields across 15 factors, ranging from
subtle (such as lack of acknowledgement) to overt (such as
workplace harassment).
Even though women are the majority in these industries, we
found they still experience a multitude of biases. One example is
constrained communication, in which women have to be mindful
when expressing authority and downplay their accomplishments.
They reported lack of acknowledgement for their contributions
and being interrupted by men when speaking. And even
when women were well represented, their workplace often
still had a boys’ club mentality where decisions were made mostly
by men. The participants were at times on a glass cliff, being held
responsible for problems outside of their control. They often
lacked mentors and sponsors. And lastly, some women found no
other choice but to limit their aspirations due to personal
obligations. In other words, their workplace was not supportive of
combining work with family. Beyond these barriers, our results
showed notable differences in other aspects of gender bias
between the industries.
Law was the most challenging environment in our study. Women
reported the highest levels of exclusion and workplace
harassment in comparison to the other three industries. There is a
long history of bias against women in law. The field’s competitive
nature and emphasis on billable hours can make it difficult for
individuals with caretaking responsibilities (disproportionately
women) to keep up, thus perpetuating inequities.
By contrast women in higher education comparatively had the
least challenging environment. These women reported facing
constrained communication, unequal standards, salary
inequality, and even workplace harassment. Yet they experienced
more egalitarian organizational norms, were more willing to
pursue promotions and other opportunities, had more
sponsorship, and received more recognition for contributions
compared to the other three industries. Higher education has a
communal nature, social justice orientation, and commitment to
shared governance and inclusivity, especially in decision making.
Collective ownership and stakeholder input may lead to an
environment that is comparatively better for women.
Female leaders in the faith-based nonprofit industry reported the
lowest levels of queen bee syndrome, workplace harassment, and
salary inequality in comparison to the other three samples. Of
course, there are some possible explanations for these results.
First, the small number of female leaders in faith-based
nonprofits may mute queen bee behaviors. Second, the faithbased nature of these organizations may
have socialized members
to be kinder and women to accept their lower status, which could
limit harassment. Last, reports of salary inequality may have been
subdued by the industry’s generally low salary expectations and
an unusual salary structure, in which couples are sometimes
hired as a unit.
Our survey participants who worked in health care reported the
second highest levels of unequal standards, just behind law.
Research in health care and other industries has found that
supposedly meritocratic reward systems have been shown to
increase gender inequalities in performance evaluations, work
allocation, and rewards — particularly in specialized job
roles. Additionally, social expectations for women to be nurturing
place pressure on women physicians to spend more time with
patients and provide more emotional support than is expected of
male counterparts.
Clearly, having balanced or even greater numbers of women in an
organization is not, by itself, changing women’s experiences of
bias. Bias is built into the system and continues to operate even
when more women than men are present. But the good news is
that leaders can use these findings to create gender-equitable
practices and environments which reduce bias.
Replace competition with cooperation.
Eight studies with 147,000 people show that dominant,
competitive leadership has the unintended consequence of zerosum thinking — the belief that progress
can be made only at the
expense of others — among subordinates. Such environments
disincentivize workers from helping or supporting their
colleagues.
Top leaders should model cooperation and incentivize
collaboration and teamwork. For instance, pharmaceutical
company Pfizer had rapid execution and success with its mRNA
Covid-19 vaccine through a cooperative environment in which
“everybody [was] pulling in the same direction with the same
goal.
” They asserted that the experience was “like magic.
Measure success by goals, not by time spent.
Too often presenteeism functions as a measure of employee
performance and dedication. As distributed workforces and
remote work have taken hold, measuring performance by time in
the office or spent online is not relevant. But giving people
freedom and responsibility to choose when they work can make
managers anxious.
One way to address this is to specify more and micromanage less.
Specify the goals and how success is measured but then allow
employees to creatively and freely pursue their objectives.
Implement equitable reward structures.
While “meritocratic” reward systems like pay-for-performance
and billable hours may seem equitable, they paradoxically
increase gender inequality. One study found that managers in
explicit meritocracies were less likely to award pay fairly and
more apt to act on biases, such as by giving women smaller
bonuses.
It’s better to implement cooperative reward structures which
recognize all types of contributions toward organizational goals.
One way to do this is to measure business units not only on their
own performance but also that of peer units, thus encouraging
employees to actively help their colleagues.
Provide remote and flexible work with autonomy.
While many companies implemented remote work before 2020,
the pandemic has proven the success of remote and flexible work
in many more industries. Not only have employee morale and
work-life balance improved with less time on the road and more
time for personal pursuits and family obligations, but even
resistant-to-change industries like banking and finance continue
to thrive with a remote workforce. In medicine, telehealth can
improve advancement opportunities and decrease burnout for
women. Some organizations, like Salesforce and Arena
Pharmaceuticals, have moved to full-time remote work. In other
industries like higher education, a hybrid workforce may be best.
While remote work isn’t an option for all jobs, flexibility can still
be given where possible. In retail, for example, workers can be
permitted to have flexible start and end times and to swap or vary
their shifts. To boost motivation and performance, maximize
employee autonomy to decide where and when their work gets
done. Companies which refuse to offer autonomy, flexibility, or
remote work when possible are risking lower employee morale
and increased turnover.
Increase transparency in decision making.
When people feel included, they will speak up and go the extra
mile, which boosts organizational performance. Transparent
decision making has been linked to increased employee trust,
happiness, and engagement, and it fosters innovative thinking.
Like higher education’s shared governance model, full discussion
and decisions should occur when stakeholders are present, as
opposed to taking place in informal conversations. Leaders
should make sure that everyone has a voice in meetings and that
all perspectives are heard and considered.
Gender equity isn’t just about representation. We need to
terminate gender bias at its root by fixing our organizations to
make them inclusive, flexible, supportive, and equitable to
women.
Amy Diehl, PhD is chief information officer at
Wilson College and a gender equity researcher
and speaker. She is coauthor of Glass Walls:
Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still
Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman &
Littlefield). Find her on LinkedIn at Amy-Diehl,
Twitter @amydiehl, and visit her website at
[Link]
Amber L. Stephenson, PhD is an associate
professor of management and director of
healthcare management programs in the David
D. Reh School of Business at Clarkson
University. Her research focuses on the
healthcare workforce, how professional
identity influences attitudes and behaviors,
and how women leaders experience gender
bias.
Leanne M. Dzubinski, PhD is acting dean of
the Cook School of Intercultural Studies and
associate professor of intercultural education at
Biola University, and a prominent researcher
on women in leadership. She is coauthor of
Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias
Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work
(Rowman & Littlefield).
AS
LD
Recommended For You
3 Workplace Biases that Derail Mid-Career Women
Research Roundup: How Women Experience the Workplace Today
PODCAST
Sexism Is Everywhere
What's Really Holding Women Back?