AOP White
Paper Series

Women in Power: Contributing Factors That
Impact on Women in Organizations and Politics;
Psychological Research and Best PracticeHazel McLaughlin, Jo Silvester, Diana Bilimoria, Sophie Jané,
Ruth Sealy, Kim Peters, Hannah Möltner, Morten Huse, and Juliane Göke
This research was sponsored by the Alliance for Organizational Psychology (AOP) and coordinated through the Board Effectiveness Group of the British Psychological Society. A version of this paper was published by the AOP as part of their White
Paper series 2020 and by Organizational Dynamics 2018. This was to allow dual publication.
Copyright 2020 Alliance for Organizational Psychology

Special thank you to the Alliance White Paper Subcommittee members(Angela Carter, Hazel McLaughlin, Maree Roche, and Lynda Zugec) for
their efforts and support in making this white paper a reality.

Table of Contents
Authors.................................................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction: Women in Power–The Global Context.......................................................................................................3
The Micro Issues..................................................................................................................................................................4
The Macro Issues................................................................................................................................................................7
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Selected Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Practical Hints and Tips....................................................................................................................................................16

AOP White
Paper Series

Authors
Dr. Hazel McLaughlin
Hazel McLaughlin is the president of the British Psychological Society. She is a fellow of the BPS, achartered psychologist, and a chartered scientist. She is an international I-O psychology consultant
with corporate experience in both executive and non-executive director roles. She is the managing
director and founder of MorphSmart, applying the science of psychology to enable change andbusiness transformation. Her work includes leadership, relational power, and diversity and inclusion.
Since 2012, she has been a regular visiting lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and
Neuroscience at Kings College London. She was the Excellence in Occupational Psychology PracticeAward winner for 2019. Contact at www.morphsmart.com and hazel.mclaughlin@morphsmart.com
Professor Jo Silvester
Jo Silvester is a professor of Work Psychology at Loughborough University; whose research focuses onleadership emergence and effectiveness in complex work environments. Her research has been foundational in understanding the nature of political work within legislatures and political parties. Jo has led
cross-party research on skills required for political working, leadership development for elected politicians, and the intersection of political work and diversity. She has worked with UK political parties todevelop fair and robust candidate selection procedures, and more recently with the House of Commons
investigating organizational culture and trust. Jo’s work has been published in international journals.
Contact: j.silvester@lboro.ac.uk https://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sbe/staff/joanne-silvester/
Professor Diana Bilimoria
Diana Bilimoria, PhD is KeyBank Professor and professor and chair of the Department of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Her
research interests focus on gender, diversity, equity, and inclusion in governance and leadership,
and organizational transformation. Dr. Bilimoria has coauthored several books and published inleading journals and edited volumes. Recent awards she has received include the Scholarly Contributions to Educational Practice Advancing Women in Leadership Award from the Gender and Diversity
in Organizations Division of the Academy of Management, and the Weatherhead School of Management Enduring Research Impact Award. Email Diana Bilimoria at diana.bilimoria@case.edu
Sophie JanéSophie Jané is a PhD candidate in the Organizational Behavior Program at the Weatherhead Schoolof Management, Case Western Reserve University. Her research interests focus on diversity andinclusion, risk perception, social cognition, and legitimacy. Sophie’s research has been published inAcademy of Management Learning and Education, Organizational Dynamics, and The Psychologist-Manager Journal. Her recent awards include a National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowship and the 2018 Academy of Management Learning and Education Best Paper Award.
Email: Sophie Jané at sej46@case.edu

1

AOP White
Paper Series

Authors (continued)
Dr. Ruth Sealy
Ruth Sealy, PhD, is an associate professor in Organisation Studies at Exeter University Business
School and a visiting fellow at Cranfield School of Management. After working as an entrepreneur
and a consultant, Ruth completed a PhD at Cranfield School of Management, where she then led thewomen on boards research for the annual Female FTSE Reports 2007-16. She joined City Universityof London in 2013 and was programme co-director for the MSc Organizational Psychology, before
moving to Exeter to become co-director for the Centre for Leadership Studies. She has publishedwidely on women on boards and women’s careers including in Business Ethics Quarterly, Human
Resource Management Journal, British Journal of Management, and Corporate Governance: International Review. Email: R.Sealy@exeter.ac.uk
Dr. Kim Peters
Kim Peters is an associate professor of Management at the University of Exeter. Her research focuseson social influence processes (including communication and leadership) in social and organizationalsettings. Her work has been published in leading journals in social psychology and management science and she works closely with organisations to examine the role of psychological factors in organisational functioning. Email Kim Peters at k.peters@uq.edu.au
Professor Hannah Moltner
Hannah Möltner is professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at FOM University of Applied.
She received her MS from the University of Bochum and her doctoral degree from Witten/Herdecke
University. Her research interests include work and leadership motivation as well as healthy leadership and organizations. She is consulting public and private organizations and has published inacademic and practitioner journals in the disciplines of management and psychology. Recently, she
has been involved in a study on “Value creating boards and gender diversity. Suggestions to progress in getting women on boards in Spain” with Mirian Izquierdo and Morten Huse (FOM Universityof Applied Sciences, Leimkugelstraße 6, 45141 Essen, Germany). Email: hannah.moeltner@fom.deProfessor Morten Huse
Morten Huse is professor of organization and management at BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo.
From 2010-2013 he was President of EURAM and 2019-2022 he is member of the board of governors of AOM. He has received the TIAW Award for Championing the Economic Development of
Women. He is doing programmatic research about women on boards and value creating boards.
Recent books include “Value-creating boards” (2018 Cambridge) and “Resolving the crisis in research by changing the game” (2020 Edward Elgar). He has signed the DORA declaration andendorsed RRBM. Email: morten.huse@bi.no
Juliane Goke
Juliane Göke is responsible for HR development topics and career paths at Deutsche Bahn in Germany. Further she is a doctoral student at Witten/Herdecke University. She studied International Management in Paderborn, Germany, and Sheffield, UK, where she was awarded her MS as valedictorian. Her research interests include corporate governance and HR development. Email Juliane Göke atjuliane.goeke@googlemail.com
2

AOP White
Paper Series

Overview
In this paper we discuss the factors that influence women’s likelihood to gain positions of power
and what impedes women’s effectiveness once in these roles. We have reviewed the researchfrom an international perspective and have highlighted the common trends that impact womenacross the globe. Although progress has been made, there is still much that needs to happen
before equality of opportunity is realized. This paper highlights the macro and micro level factors that have an impact on women’s rise to powerful positions and the progress and reactions
thereafter. The psychological research indicates that it is not sufficient to address the individual
challenges of being a woman in business or in politics. The current emphasis is on women as
individuals and relies on them taking action. But this fails to address the wider societal impacts.
It is not sufficient for women to focus on building their networks, increasing their social capital,and enhancing their motivation. This fails to take into account the institutional and societal biases
that undermine opportunities for women. We recommend changes in the way that women
approach opportunities in the workplace and in the way that policy makers and employers act.
We highlight the importance of embracing diversity more broadly, not simply from a gender
perspective. Only in this way, can there be equality of opportunity and an enhancement of diversity in the workplace. We address the practical implications from the psychological researchand provide advice for organizations, senior executives, women throughout their professional
careers, and for young women as they start their career journey.
Introduction: Women in Power–The Global Context
Women are underrepresented in both business and politics, and this is consistent around the globe. It is tempting tolook at notable exceptions. In politics there are prominent female leaders such as Angela Merkel in Germany andAung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar. In business, there are role models such as Ursula Burns, the chair of Xerox and CEOof the corporation from 2009 to 2016. An African American, Burns took over as CEO from Anne Mulcahy, who had
been at the helm since 2011. This insight suggests that women are now well represented in senior positions. However, this is not the case. The United Nations includes women’s representation in the workplace as a key component
for gender equity. Several nations, for example Norway and Malaysia, have responded by mandating quotas for
women to ascend to leadership and governance positions. Yet this has not been adopted consistently or effectively
by most countries. Consequently, women remain noticeably absent from senior leadership positions.
In Standard & Poors (S&P) 500 companies, in the US, women comprise approximately 45% of the labor force anda little over 36% of first and mid-level managers. Yet only 25% of executive/senior level officials and managers, lessthan 20% of board members, and only 5% of CEOs were women in 2016.
The numbers are even more concerning for women of color: 1.7% of Asian women, 1.2% of Black women, and 1.0% of Latina women were executive, senior level officials and managers in S&P 500 companies in 2015. The National Science Foundation reported that in 2015 women were particularly sparse in leadership positions in traditionallymasculine fields. Only 19% of managers in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce
are women, and the proportion drops to 15% for top-level managers in STEM business and industry.
The monitoring of figures globally over the past 15 years shows that the gender balance of boards is unlikely tochange dramatically through organic processes. Many countries’ efforts stagnate at about 15% women on boards.
Most European countries require a delegation of executive tasks from a supervisory board to an executive body. In
3

AOP White
Paper Series
Germany, on the management board only 6% of the seats are held by women. In 2011, women held 10% of the supervisory board seats, the portion increased in 2016 to 26%. However, there are few women represented in board
committees. For example, on the audit committee only 18% were women. Furthermore, in 2016 16% of Germany’s
largest companies were without a single woman on their board. 41% of the boards had less than three women. Research shows that a critical mass of three is needed to be able to exert influence.
In the UK, the government has brought in targets for two levels below the board. The Executive Committee and theirdirect reports must consist of 33% by 2020.
The Micro Issues
Women in Politics
With regard to political elites, there are high profile role models such as Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, andTheresa May, Britain’s second woman prime minister. Women have occupied the roles of U.S. attorney general andhead of the International Monetary Fund. The U.N. reported the number of women parliamentarians doubled worldwide between 1995 and 2015. Yet despite promising signs of progress, it is arguably too early to celebrate. Hilary
Clinton won the most votes but nevertheless lost the presidency to Donald Trump. In the UK, for every woman elected
as a member of Parliament (MP),four men become MPs. Only 17% of the women elected become government ministers. They usually have responsibilities for education and the family rather than more powerful areas such as businessor defense. Women’s participation in workers’ unions, a traditional route into politics in Europe, is at an all-time high.
But, their representation at leadership levels remains low. In the next section we explore the underlying reasons forthis disparity.
How Similar or Different Are Men and Women as Leaders?
The first question to address is the fundamental one; are women different from men as leaders? A quantitative analysis of over 160 studies of gender-linked differences in leadership style indicates that men and women exhibit similarstyles overall. The one exception is that in male-dominated workplaces, women use more participative leadershipstyles, and less autocratic, or directive styles than men.
A follow-up study found no differences in leadership effectiveness unless there is a high percentage of male subordinates or the role is perceived as inherently masculine. These findings were found to favor women more than men
when the conditions were reversed. If leadership skill and style are similar between men and women, what might
account for the persistent shortage of women in power?
Disrupting male dominance of corporate boards has become a social change movement in a number of countries. Thinking has progressed from “fixing women” (e.g. thinking the reason women do not get board positions can be attributed tosome failing on their part, such as lack of human capital, insufficient statement of ambition or poor networking skills) to arecognition of such structural issues as a lack of alternative childcare, or flexible work arrangements. Heuristics, or “rulesof thumb,” that affect our judgements in organizational life are often based on stereotypes or unconscious biases. For
example, executive search firms typically prefer female board candidates who hold a financial qualification. They do notconsistently apply this to male candidates. There is a stereotype that girls are not as good at math as boys. Thus havingthat qualification gives women credibility as a potential leader.
Countries that are proactive on the political agenda in terms of encouraging diversity include Iceland, Finland andNorway. These countries are also proactive in encouraging social and societal factors to support women to achieve
top organizational positions.

The first question to address is the fundamental one;
are women different from men as leaders?
4AOP White
Paper Series
Individual factors–What Are the Core Issues for Women to Address?
Research clearly shows that greater diversity, if managed effectively, produces better quality decision-making, withless “group think,” enhanced innovation, and better adherence to governance rules. Moreover, there is increasing
evidence that traditionally masculine occupational contexts erodes the motivation that makes it possible for womento persist in the face of barriers. In a range of traditionally masculine occupational contexts, from policing to politics,
researchers have found that women’s (but not men’s) motivation to get ahead in their careers wanes over time.
The temptation is to focus on what women can do themselves to enhance their impact in terms of how they present themselves in the board room, network, build their social capital, and enhance their ambition and determination to succeed.
Undoubtedly, women can look inwardly and ensure that they are making the right moves. But this is not enough. The
research evidence indicates that this only makes a dent in the imbalance but not equality.
The Importance of Role Models
In male-dominated occupations, it may be harder for women to find individuals to identify with as role models. Research shows that women are particularly likely to nominate other women as role models, especially if these women
identify highly with their gender.
There is further evidence that this presents difficulties in male-dominated occupations. Women are less likely than men
to feel that they have good role models for future achievement; they are also more likely to say that their role models
are negative (i.e., examples of who not to be) rather than positive (i.e., examples of who to emulate).
Women’s motivation to persist in male-dominated roles and occupations is likely to be adversely impacted by social
comparisons. In particular, women more than men are likely to feel that they are different to the leading members ofthese roles and occupations. There is evidence that this perception of difference undermines their identification withthese occupational groups and makes it difficult to find inspiring role models.
Importantly though, there is evidence that interventions can have beneficial effects on women’s motivation to getahead. Therefore, ensuring that the environment within which the interventions takes place contains gender-sensitive
belonging cues should increase their effectiveness. Furthermore, female university students who encounter female
teachers in male-dominated fields are more likely to pursue further study in that field. There is also impressive evidence that when villages in India were randomly assigned a female leader, the gender gap in career aspirations
shrunk markedly between girls and boys.
Motivation–How Can Women’s Motivation Be Focused on the Top Jobs?
Overall, there are consistent differences between men and women regarding leadership motivation. Regarding motivation to lead, men and women differ in the affective component with women scoring lower. This component reflects
the degree to which one likes to lead others.
It has a strong impact on leadership emergence and leadership role occupancy. In addition, women are less likely to exhibit
the leadership motive pattern, as they score lower in “power motivation” and higher in “affiliation motivation.” Thus, womenon average tend to have a lower desire to influence others and a stronger wish to be liked and accepted. This results, on
average, in a lower drive to aspire to and assume a leadership role as well as the persistence to be and act as a leader.

Women are less likely than men to feelthat they have good role models for
future achievement
5AOP White
Paper Series
Alice Eagly’s Social Role Theory explains these effects with the congruity of the two leadership motivation approaches with the traditional male gender role. Therefore, for a woman a role incongruity often arises between her genderrole and the leader role. Consistently, women who hold traditional gender role beliefs exhibit less affective motivation to lead compared to women who do not hold those beliefs. For men those beliefs, such as women shall support
the career of their husband and not their own, do not produce role incongruity, and thus do not result in lower affective motivation to lead. Similarly, the leadership motive pattern is more consistent with traditional male gender rolecompared to the female one. In sum, leadership motivation models are inclined towards the traditional male genderrole. This makes it difficult for some women to aspire to leadership positions. Even more, research suggests that women are penalized and devalued when exhibiting agentic, and thus male stereotyped leadership styles. Accordingly,
the initial lower leadership motivation may decline in a downward spiral. However, being provided with female rolemodels may reduce stereotype threats and enhance leadership motivation of women.
Additionally, studies indicate the existence of multiple motivations beyond traditional, male-focused reasons to takeover a leadership position, especially board of director positions.
For example, Walther, Moltner and Morner reported that one supervisory board member described his motivation tocontinue serving on a board in terms of “the fun of the job, to have another challenge, to meet very interesting people, and to give something back [to the firm]”. Thus, there are multiple motivations, beyond a traditional leadershipmotivation, to take into account when evaluating a board candidate.
Unconscious Biases and Stereotypes
Multinational corporations around the globe have embraced unconscious bias training with this becoming regulartraining in large organizations. However, this generic training to elevate awareness does not necessarily result insignificant behavioral change. Women are held back by the unconscious biases of their superiors and colleagues.
While unconscious gender bias does not necessarily imply an underlying intention to cause harm, the context that it
generates prevents women from reaching their full potential.
Bias against women leaders
The media fuels the public perception that women leaders should not be taken seriously. Media articles for womenbusiness leaders, such as Carly Fiorina or Sheryl Sandburg, that scrutinize clothing choices over substantive details
dilute the message that women leaders are on the same level as men.
Further, the double bind, in which women are either perceived as too cold and aggressive, or too feminine and caring, make it difficult for a woman to be perceived objectively by her colleagues.
One explanation for this mismatch in perceptions is that when the same behaviors exhibited by a male leader are
adopted by a woman, the behavior is perceived differently due to stereotype sex roles. Thus, traits such as risktaking are perceived positively when enacted by a male, they are typically evaluated negatively for women as they
are seen to be inconsistent with stereotypical female traits. Early work on gender perceptions of leaders found that

While unconscious gender bias
does not necessarily imply
an underlying intention tocause harm, the context that it
generates prevents women fromreaching their full potential.
6

AOP White
Paper SeriesThis “Think Manager, Think Male”
phenomenon indicates that men are
more readily associated with the roleof a leader than womenmanagers rated characteristics of males as more similar to those of leaders than females. This “Think Manager, ThinkMale” phenomenon indicates that men are more readily associated with the role of a leader than women. In short,there is evidence to suggest that biases that favor men as leaders occur early in the information processing stage.
Biases in the Selection Processes
Executive search firms often treat men and women differently in the selection procedures for board appointments.
Women tend to have a different set of experiences and career trajectories than most men. So, there is a sense that
their candidacy has to be justified much more explicitly.
Biases that affect women’s selection and advancement have been identified across many fields and disciplines. A recent randomized study using identically qualified male and female applicants for a manager position demonstrated
that the female applicant was perceived as less competent and qualified than her male counterpart, was less likely
to be hired, and if hired was subsequently offered less salary and mentoring opportunities. Similarly, STEM faculty
often ignore emails from prospective graduate students more frequently when they believe the sender is female.
In an experiment comparing identical applications, mothers received fewer recommendations for hire, promotion
and management than non-mothers or fathers. They were also offered lower starting salaries than non-mothers. Yet
fathers were perceived as more committed to their work and were offered higher starting salaries than non-fathers.
Women also frequently receive less recognition for their accomplishments, particularly when working on projects that
require collaboration. When women are recognized at work, the feedback they receive is more ambivalent and lesspredictable than the praise awarded to men.
Tokenism–Women on their own
When women are relatively uncommon in leadership roles, they can be seen as the token minority within a firm. This
results in additional scrutiny. Worse, it increases the likelihood that they will be subject to stereotyping and negative
judgements. Women who are perceived as tokens become spokespersons for their gender, and their status as awoman overshadows their ability to be seen as unique individuals. They therefore may be judged on their genderrather than on their capability. This presents further obstacles to being considered for advancement.
International Perspectives
The barriers that gender stereotypes present to women’s success may vary from one culture and country to the next.
In a recent study of over 300,000 individuals across 66 countries, there was a positive association between a nation’s stereotype that science is a masculine occupation and the proportion of men who were enrolled or employedin the science courses and careers. However, the large variation in these stereotypes across cultures provides clear
evidence that it is possible to change stereotypes for the best.
The Macro Issues
Biased Systems and Segregation
Industry and academia both remain challenging environments for women. Women remain disadvantaged by thelack of support they face at work. Hence, many leave before they are promoted. Not only does this deprive organi7

AOP White
Paper Series
zations from recouping their investment in human capital, it adds to the negative perceptions of women in leadershiproles. Women are often not given the stretch assignments that are necessary to build leadership skills. This is compounded by the lack of certainty regarding the assumptions made by superiors and colleagues regarding promotability. Women in academia often avoid utilizing childcare facilities on campus, and the pretenure extension clock
policies due to their concerns about being perceived as less committed to advancement.
Institutional Barriers to Advancement
Women suffer in terms of the wage gap and the additional time it takes for them to be considered for advancement.
Women are given fewer challenging leadership tasks than men. This prevents them from competing effectively with
their male colleagues. Thus women receive lower promotion potential ratings than men.
Men are more likely to be offered leadership roles, regardless of whether the field is male or female dominated. Thisphenomenon, known as the glass escalator, benefits men while maintaining the glass ceiling that stymies women’s advancement. With fewer opportunities to learn the skills associated with leadership, women are less visible in the organization and frequently lack both the social ties and experience necessary to get ahead. These disadvantages accumulate
over the course of a woman’s career, owing to the pyramid structure of many organizations and the tournament model.
This model relates to personal economics where incremental rewards, not absolute levels, determine effort. The spreadof rewards impacts on motivation to succeed, with the greatest reward being given to the winner –that is, those highest
in the hierarchy. Within these organizational parameters, early success is a condition for later advancement. This impacts
on the gender pay gap and makes it more of a challenge for women to reach the top roles.
Judging Potential
In most political settings, becoming a leader depends on being perceived to be a potential leader by others. Perceptions of suitability are particularly important when leadership roles are conferred by multiple people and where views
may be disparate and conflicting (e.g., elections).
Such judgments of suitability or leadership potential are frequently influenced by our mind-set about whom or whatmakes a good leader. Political role models have traditionally been male. Women are less likely to fit the mental model of a political leader, or be perceived as sufficiently qualified to become a member of the political elite. According
to the “lack-of-fit” theory, the traditional dominance of men in leadership roles can be explained by a perceived
incongruence between qualities stereotypically assigned to women such as being relationship-oriented and caring.
These are not qualities associated with successful leaders that are more stereotypically male such as being tough and achievement oriented.
This is problematic for women candidates who are fighting to be elected.
Voters have the freedom to vote for an individual using whatever criteria
they consider relevant or important. For example, research shows that votersmake decisions about future political leaders based on their inferences, including perceived charisma, integrity, appearance and height. Studies haveshown that, even if approved by their political party, women are less likely
than men to be selected to fight for a winnable seat.
Are quotas the solution?
Fifteen countries now have some sort of quota for women’s representation
on boards and a further 16 have some sort of governance (i.e., non-legislative) approach. A recent Harvard Business Review paper looked at
the differences in attitudes to boardroom quotas across countries with andwithout such legislation. Interviewing both directors and executive search
consultants, they found the discourse in the US, where progress in the figures
has stalled since 2009, has not moved on.
8

In most politicalsettings, becoming
a leader depends
on being perceived
to be a potential
leader by others.

AOP White
Paper Series
The excuses include not enough women of sufficient caliber; women do not want to be a token; and the problem will
sort itself out. In contrast in the UK, Australia and European countries where either quotas or targeted governanceinterventions of between 25-40% are in place, the expected outcomes feared by many Americans, such as womennot being taken seriously or too few talented women taking up the roles, have not occurred. What has happened is
not just increased gender diversity but a more professional and formal approach to governance requirements, succession planning on the boards, clarified skills requirements and board appointment processes. Quotas have helped
to overcome tokenism and to install highly visible female role models.
Recommendations
With so many potential biases coupled with the macro institutional factors, it is tempting to feel powerless in redressing gender imbalance. However, there is much that can be done.
First, examine data analytics. Countries and organizations which have the data on the reality of women’s participation, attrition, selection, promotion rates, and so on, have a relatively accurate picture of what is happening. Therefore, they are able to address underlying issues. The data also help to justify the need for an intervention.
Second, specific, challenging, attainable goals and measurable objectives are necessary for behavioral change. In
business, there is a truism of “that which gets measured gets done.” Although this may seem obvious, it is only recently that in the UK, for example, organizations have started to publish targets for percentages of various ‘protected’group characteristics (e.g., on gender and race). For example, the larger law firms have focused on data analytics
and set targets for a certain proportion (e.g., 30%) of all new partner promotions each year to be female. A large
corporation has a target to have 30% of its senior management team be female by 2020. The very public way inwhich these targets have been set reveals real intent and accountability.
Third, leadership must be upfront about the necessity for change. This is key for role modelling and signalling. A CEO must
explain to employees what needs to change and why; calling out unacceptable behavior and painting the vision of an
inclusive aspiration. Women must see other women ahead of them succeeding, continually and over long periods of time.
Governments should show leadership by role-modeling good gender balance in state-owned enterprises. Government departments should intervene with businesses who refuse to address the lack of gender balance. Capitalist
ideology advocates intervention when market failure occurs.
HR Practices
The first step is to articulate the core capabilities. The use of objective measures and in-depth interviewing aroundcore capabilities will add to the objectivity of the selection/promotion process.
A second step is more radical. Remove incoming resumes of names in order to obscure the gender of applicants. The
evidence indicates that it is an equitable way to complete the initial sift.
Third, in cases where individuals are being considered for promotion, evaluating application packets in pairs has
been found to reduce gender-based stereotyping because it promotes the salience of one’s past performance.
Fourth, it is recommended that the assessment and interview process combines different perspectives and sources ofdata to inform the final decision.

Countries and organizations which have the dataon the reality of women’s participation, attrition,
selection, promotion rates, and so on, have arelatively accurate picture of what is happening.
9AOP White
Paper Series
The interview stage provides another opportunity for minimizing bias. Unstructured interviews enable biased perceptions. But structured interviews minimize bias especially when there is demographic diversity on the interview panel.
Recommended Approaches for the Future
Senior Men in Organizations
Initiatives that aim to increase the representation of women in positions of power have typically focused on providing women with targeted training or mentoring programs. There is now increasing recognition that it is important tobroaden the focus to include men. Men have important roles to play in changing the masculine standards that areassociated with most positions of power. It is they who must champion gender equality in the workplace.
There is evidence that masculine stereotypes have negative implications for men too. Men are sensitive to the extent towhich they measure up to masculine standards.
Men who feel that they are not “man enough” for a particular position often change their behavior in ways that serve
to reinforce masculine stereotypes, by exaggerating their masculinity and avoiding behaviors that may be construed
as feminine. Alternatively, they may choose to opt out of their job.
Importantly, the way in which men respond to masculine stereotypes influences their tenacity. This is because the men
who are most likely to enter and stay in these positions are those who are most comfortable engaging in and endorsing hypermasculine behaviors. All this means that, without the active involvement of men, it will be difficult to change
the stereotypes that are associated with positions of power. In particular, it is possible that increasing the diversity ofmen in positions of power may, by eroding hyper-masculine stereotypes, will increase the representation of women.
Men’s capacity to increase women’s representation in positions of power goes beyond challenging masculine stereotypes. Indeed, recent burgeoning initiatives seek to involve men in gender equality efforts include the UN’s “HeforSheinitiative” which was launched in 2014 to involve men and boys as equal partners in building gender equal societies.
“Male Champions of Change”, an initiative of the Australian Human Rights Commission, aims to empower maleleaders of some of Australia’s most prestigious organizations to take action in support of gender equality within theirrespective organizations as well as society more generally.
Although it is too early to assess the success of these initiatives, thereis evidence that men can become effective champions of women’s
careers and play an important role in their attainment of top positions.

There is evidence
that men can become
effective champions of
women’s careers andplay an important rolein their attainment of
top positions.

There is widespread agreement among senior individuals in Fortune
500 and nonprofit organizations that men have contributed to genderinclusivity by actively facilitating culture change (e.g., by pushing backagainst gender stereotypes) and mentoring women into positions of
power. Men who were male champions tended to see gender equality
as a moral imperative. Moreover, they perceived it as consistent withgood business practice. These value-based and pragmatic motives arelevers that organizational practitioners may focus on in their efforts toengage men in organizational gender equality.
Powerful Elites–Senior Executives
Senior leaders in business should energize and support women
throughout their careers. They should sponsor and mentor them togain upper management positions and to flourish in that environment. The question is how they can address the challenges and makethe most of talented women for their organization.
10

AOP White
Paper Series
To provide benefits and incentives to make change a reality, senior managers must be shown how women increase
diversity of ideas and provide different perspectives on issues. Additionally, gender balanced firms increase employer attractiveness.
Therefore, senior management should:••••

Place talent identification and development as a core objective for each of them to pursue and attain.
Actively mentor women by encouraging and empowering them.
Provide paternity and maternity leave of equal lengths and improve childcare services that they themselves use
for their children.
Encourage diversity as the norm. Institutional normative pressures and desires to belong and not to be left behind meansthat all-male management teams have now become socially unacceptable in the largest listed companies and professional service firms. Similarly, they will also become unacceptable in the medium and small enterprises of the future.

Organizational Structure, Processes and Behavior
Institutional action is needed to build true equality. Without corporate action, inherent biases will remain unchallenged. Top management teams in organizations need to be role models for change. Organizations must encourage
equality of opportunity and this can be supported by revisiting corporate culture and by reinforcing behaviors that
promote fair treatment. Policies and procedures need to reinforce diversity and promote fairness at every level. Thereis a need to challenge stereotypes and promote equality such that gender equality becomes the norm.
Women in Organizations
Women who are on the career ladder can support their future opportunities in two ways. First, they must build their social
capital, network effectively and develop a wider range of core capabilities. It is important to seek opportunities to contribute across silos and to undertake companywide projects. Second, women can enhance their impact by effective use ofpolitical will, enhanced influence, and by successfully navigating the power dynamics in the corporate environment.
Young women starting their careers
In the younger generation, women are increasingly gaining education and seeking opportunities beyond traditional
corporate careers. Each additional year of secondary schooling that a girl receives increases her future earnings by
15% to 25%. When 10% more girls go to school, a country’s GDP increases by an average of 3%. Eliminating barriers
to employment for women could raise labor productivity by 25% in some countries. Companies with female leadershipon their boards have a higher return on equity. Start-ups that have women on their executive team show a higher likelihood of succeeding. Corporations led by women are more likely to be focused on sustainability. If female farmers had
the same access to resources as men, it is predicted there would be 150 million fewer hungry people in the world.
Conclusion
Women can support themselves and others to succeed in leadership roles by building their social capital and by
actively aspiring to positions of power. Senior and mid-level women can be role models for women, and encourage
the diversity agenda. But as we argue here, it is not sufficient to focus on women’s actions alone or solely on their education and aspirations. We need to take a long hard look at the macro issues and institutional biases and to openly
and actively tackle these underlying issues. Men have a significant role to play both as mentors and advocates ofwomen, and in redefining what is and is not acceptable behavior in the world of work. Diversity adds value to organizations and builds new opportunities for both men and women. In this way we will open the door for both genders
and enhance the impact and power of women across the globe.

Diversity adds value to organizations andbuilds new opportunities for both men and women.
11

AOP White
Paper Series
Selected Bibliography
For research concerning the second-generation gender bias, see: Ibarra, H., Ely, R., & Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: The
unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 60-66.
Sturm, S. (2001). Second generation employment discrimination: A structural approach. Columbia Law Review, 458-568.
For research on gender and biased selection procedures, see: Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2014). Discrimination
is not evenly distributed: A field experiment in academia. Wharton paper.
Miller, D. I., & Wai, J. (2015). The bachelor’s to Ph. D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: a 30-year analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 37.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle genderbiases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479.
For bias at board appointment level, see: Doldor, E.; Sealy, R. & Vinnicombe, S. (2016). Accidental activists: Headhunters as
marginal diversity actors in institutional change towards more women on boards. Human Resource Management Journal,
26(3), 285–303.
Studies demonstrating biases against parents are outlined in: Benard, S., & Correll, S. J. (2010). Normative discrimination andthe motherhood penalty. Gender & Society, 24(5), 616-646.
Benard, S., Paik, I., & Correll, S. J. (2007). Cognitive bias and the motherhood penalty. Hastings LJ, 59, 1359.
Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology,112(5), 1297-1338.
For research on biases associated with the gender attributed to an applicant’s name, see: Curseu, P. L., & Boros, S. (2008). Stereotypes and prejudice towards women managers: An experimental illustration using the Goldberg-paradigm in a Romanian sample. Studia Psychologica, 50(3), 233.
Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants
and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7-8), 509-528.
Literature concerning lack of recognition for women’s achievement is outlined in: Fels, A. (2004). Do women lack ambition?.
Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 50-60.
Sarsons, H. (2015). Gender differences in recognition for group work (Working Paper No. 254946).
For literature on the phenomenon of tokensism, see: Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed
sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990.
Thompson, M., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2002). When being different is detrimental: Solo status and the performance of womenand racial minorities. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 183-203.
For research describing challenges to women’s credibility and competence, see: Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., &Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603-625.
MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. N. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291-303.
Storage, D., Horne, Z., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S. J. (2016). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations
predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PloS one, 11(3), e0150194.
Popular literature describing biases against women leaders can be found in: Adams, S. (2013). The two things Sheryl Sandberg says she would do to make things better for women. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/
2013/03/12/the-two-things-sheryl-sandberg-says-she-would-do-to-make-things-better-for-women/#3cd599216faa
Kinsley, M. (2015). How double standards over appearances could hobble Carly Fiorina. Retrieved from: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/09/how-double-standards-over-appearances-could-hobble-carly-fiorina.
12

AOP White
Paper Series
For literature on the double bind, and sex-roles, see: Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between
sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 662-669.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 62.
Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Psychology Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men,
women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 935-942.
Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, K. A., & Brown, D. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 230-242.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95.
Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. (1993). Think manager, think male. Management Development Review, 6(3), 24.
For research on the systemic biases and the effects of the system on women’s behavior in the workplace, see: Carter, N. M., &Silva, C. (2010). Women in management: Delusions of progress. Harvard Business Review, 88(3), 19-21.
Drago, R. (2007). Harvard and the academic glass ceiling. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30).
Hewlett, S. A., Luce, C. B., & Servon, L. J. (2008). Stopping the exodus of women in science. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 22-24.
Ibarra, H., Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, 88(9),80-85. O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2011). Faculty sense of agency in decisions about work and family. Review ofHigher Education, 34(3), 447-476.
For research on the institutional barriers that affect women’s advancement, see: Blau, F. D., & DeVaro, J. (2007). New evidence
on gender differences in promotion rates: An empirical analysis of a sample of new hires. Industrial Relations: A Journal of
Economy and Society, 46(3), 511-550.
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T. D. (1986). The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks
them from the top jobs. Wall Street Journal, 24(1).
King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A. (2012). Benevolent sexism at work: Genderdifferences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1835-1866.
Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist,
51(2), 157–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.157
Petersen, T., & Morgan, L. A. (1995). Separate and unequal: Occupation-establishment sex segregation and the gender wage
gap. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 329-365.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1979). Tournament mobility: Career patterns in a corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 220-241.
Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2012). A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performancein field studies. Journal of Management, 38(2), 719-739.
Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39(3),253-267.
For research on workplace gender segregation, see: Ibarra, H., Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 80-85.
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2013). Access denied: Low mentoring of women and minority first-time directors and its
negative effects on appointments to additional boards. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1169-1198
The discussion of the supply side and demand side that facilitates or hinders women’s access to boards is published here:
Gabaldon, P., Anca, C. de, Mateos de Cabo, R., & Gimeno, R. (2016). Searching for women on boards: An analysis from the
supply and demand perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 371–385.
A comprehensive discussion of snowball effects of the Norwegian gender balance law can be found in:
Machold, S., Huse, M., Hansen, K., & Brogi, M. (2013). Getting women on to corporate boards. A snowball starting in Norway. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
13

AOP White
Paper Series
More details on current leadership motivation approach (motivation to lead, leadership motive pattern) are issued in:
Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: understanding the motivation tolead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481–498.
McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737–743.
A full picture of social role theory and preference theory is available here: Diekman A. B., Eagly A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp.
434–447). New York: Guilford.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford: University Press.
A description of the German corporate governance system can be found in:Tuschke, A., & Luber, M. (2012). Corporate governance in Germany: Converging towards shareholder value-orientation or not
so much? In A. A. Rasheed & T. Yoshikawa (Eds.), The convergence of corporate governance: Promise and prospects (pp.
75–92). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
The statistics on women on boards in Germany have been drawn from:
Schulz-Strelow, M. & von Falkenhausen, J. (2016). Women-on-Board-Index (WoB 160). Transparente und aktuelle Dokumentation zum Anteil von Frauen im Aufsichtsrat und Vorstand der 160 im DAX, MDAX, SDAX und TecDAX notierten Unternehmen. [Women-on-Board-Index (WoB 160).
Transparent and Up-To-Date Documentation of Women’s Share in Supervisory Boards and Management Boards of DAX,MDAX, SDAX, and TecDAX-Listed Companies]. Berlin: FidAR.
Studies on German non-executive director’s motivation and multiple motivations are available here: Walther, A., Möltner, H., &Morner, M. (2017). Non-executive director’s motivation to continue serving on boards: A self-determination theory perspective. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business In Society, 17(1), 64–76.
De Jong, A., Hooghiemstra, R., & van Rinsum, M. (2014). To accept or refuse an offer to join the board: Dutch evidence. Long
Range Planning, 47(5), 262-276.
Boivie, S., Graffin, S. D., & Pollock, T. G. (2012). Time for me to fly: Predicting director exit at large firms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1334-1359.
For the impact that powerful elites can have suggested reading is: Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Kidder, D. L., Cheung, H.
K., Morner, M., & Lievens, F. (2016). Actions speak louder than words: Outsiders’ perceptions of diversity mixed messages.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1329.
Iannotta, M., Gatti, M., & Huse, M. (2016). Institutional complementarities and gender diversity on boards: A configurational
approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4): 406–427
Kanadlı, S. B., Torchia, M., & Gabaldon, P. (2017). Increasing women’s contribution on board decision making: The importance of chairperson leadership efficacy and board openness. European Management Journal, 36(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.
emj.2017.03.006.
For research into women in politics: Antonakis, J. & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s play! Science, 323, 1183.
Burrell, B.C. (1994). A woman’s place is in the house: Campaigning for congress in the feminist era. University of Michigan Press.
Cooper, R. (2012). The gender gap in union leadership in Australia: A qualitative study. Journal of Industrial Relations, 54 (2),131-146.
Doldor, E. (2013). Organizational politics: the missing link to women’s progression into managerial roles. In S. Vinnicombe, R.J.,
Burke, S. Blake-Bears & L.L. Moor (Eds.) handbook of research on promoting women’s careers,(pp. 196-211). Edward Elgar.
Doldor, E., Anderson, D., & Vinnicombe, S. (2013). Refining the concept of political will: A gender perspective. British Journalof Management, 24, 414-427.
Flinders, M., Matthews, M., & Eason, C. (2012). Political recruitment beyond elections: An exploration of the linkage between
patronage, democracy, and diversity in the United Kingdom. Public Administration, 90(2), 511-528.
14

AOP White
Paper Series
Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2011). Gendered perceptions and political candidacies: A central barrier to women’s equality inelectoral politics. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 59-73.
Gidengill, E. & Everett, J. (2003). Conventional coverage/unconventional politicians: Gender and media coverage of Canadian leaders’ debates, 1993, 1997, 2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36 (3), 559-577.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woyke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: a psychological theory ofleader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.
Huddy, L. & Terkildsen, N. (1993a). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels of office.
Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503-525.
Newman, B. (2003). Integrity and presidential approval: 1980-2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 335-367.
Perrewé, P.L. & Nelson, D.L. (2004). Gender and career success: the facilitative role of political skill. Organizational Dynamics,
33, 366-378.
Ryan, M., Haslam, S., & Kulich, C. (2010). Politics and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to contest
hard-to-win seats. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 56-64.
Silvester, J. (2012). Recruiting politicians: Designing competency-based selection for UK Parliamentary candidates. In A. Weinberg (ed.) The psychology of politicians (pp. 21-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silvester, J. & Dykes, C. (2007). Selecting political candidates: A longitudinal study of assessment centre performance andelectoral success in the 2005 UK General Election. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 11-25.
Silvester, J., Wyatt, M. & Randall, R. (2014). Politician personality, Machiavellianism, and political skill as predictors of performance ratings in political roles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(2), 258-279.
Wyatt, M., & Silvester, J. (2015). Reflecting on the labyrinth: Investigating black and minority ethnic (BME) leaders’ career
experiences using template analysis. Human Relations, 68(8), 1243-1269.
For reviews of women on boards literature and gender board quotas, see: Terjesen, S.; Sealy, R. & Singh, V. (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: International Review, 17(3), 320-337.
Terjsen, S. & Sealy, R. (2016) Board gender quotas: Exploring ethical tensions from a multi-theoretical perspective, Business
Ethics Quarterly, 26(1), 23-65.
For articles looking at role models and the impact of demographics on motivations see: Sealy, R. & Singh, V. (2010). The importance of role models and demographic context for senior women’s work identity development. International Journal ofManagement Reviews. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00262.x
Sealy, R (2010) Changing perceptions of meritocracy in senior women’s careers. Gender in Management: International Journal, 25(3),184-197. DOI: 10.1108/17542411011036392
Peters et al. Lockwood (2006); Gibson and Cordova (1999) Bettinger and Long (2005) (Beaman, Duflo, Pande & Topalova,
2012).
For girls and education useful literature is: Chaaban, J. & Cunningham, W. (2011). Measuring the economic gain of investing ingirls: The girl effect dividend. World Bank, Washington, DC. Policy Research Working Paper 5753.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), (2011). The state of food and agriculture: Women in agriculture 2010-2011. Rome.
Lee, L. Marshall, R., Rallis, D., & Moscardi, M. (2015). Women on boards: Global trends in gender diversity on corporateboards. MSCI ESG Research Inc., November 2015.
McElhaney, K. & Mobasseri, S. (2012). Women create a sustainable future. UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Center for
Responsible Business.
Revenga, A. & Shetty, S. (2012). Empowering women is smart economics. Finance & Development, March 2012, 49(1). Reported by IMF at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/03/revenga.htm
UNICEF (2011). Retrieved at: https://www.unicef.org/media/media_58417.html
Women in Venture Capital Study Research Team, Dow Jones (2012). Women at the wheel: Do female executives drive start-up
success?

15

AOP White
Paper Series
Practical Hints and Tips
Group
Practical Tips: Core questions to aid reflect on the approach and priorities
For Organizations
Does your strategy reflect your objectives around diversity and inclusion? What do you want toachieve and by when?
Would it be useful to set specific goals? How will you monitor them?
What are your data analytics and how do you use them?
How can the organization draw on government support and initiatives?
How can your organization share best practice?
Building Structure,
Review your current policies and processes? Do they support diversity and inclusion? How canProcesses & Policies
they be strengthened?
What are the ‘norms’ in terms of behaviours? What processes do you have for ‘calling out’
behaviours that disadvantage specific groups?
Do you need to adapt or refine your culture to avoid biases? How does your organization
challenge inherent biases?
Who are the role models and how can you encourage more impact on diversity and inclusionfrom them?
What are the incentives and rewards in the organization? How do they support and enhancediversity and inclusion?
For Senior Leaders
How many of your senior leaders recognise the need for change?
What initiatives are underway to support this change?
Who are the role models; can you included both men and women? How has this extended toother minority groups?
Do senior leader, both men and wome,n mentor upcoming talent and how? In what ways do
you review the impact of this mentoring?
What are the power dynamics in your organization? Do the support and value diversity andsupport inclusion? How can this be changed?
How do senior leaders (especially men) sponsor and mentor others?
For Women in Careers
How can you increase your social capital?
What opportunities are there in your organisation to work beyond your current silo?
Are you proactive in networking?
How can you increase the breadth of your core capabilities? How do you communicate this toothers and use it to add value within your organization?
How can you be more proactive in your organisation to show what you are capable of andwhat would support you to achieve?
For Young Women
Education is important. How can you seek out ways to enhance and leverage your education?
starting their Careers
Focus on sustainable actions? What resources and support are available to you?
Seek out mentors and sponsors? Who can enable you to achieve your potential?
How can you build your networks? How can you add value to others?
For HR Practitioners
Training and development are important, but they are not enough. How can you go beyond
unconscious bias training or for women only programs?
How can you enhance good HR Practice in your organization? How much do you use tools thatenhance objectivity? How well do the HR practices support competency and merit for lookand fit?
What role can HR play in education and training of all leaders in D & I best practice?
How well does HR support D & I in terms of culture and behaviours? Do you take timely action
and challenge bias?

16