Exploring the paper ‘Slaying the Seven-Headed Dragon: The Quest for Gender Change in Academia‘ – Brink, M.C.L. van den; Benschop, Y.W.M., 2012
Blog four of five, in a series by Dr Chrissi McCarthy.
In the final blog of the second research on the social cycle, we continue to look at (Van den Brink & Benschop, 2012).
If you haven’t read blogs two and three in the series, we recommend that you do so.
The paper helps explain three crucial aspects:
- how cause is as important as the problem,
- how work can be misaligned
- how equity can be undermined by inequality.
Today, we will delve deeper into Van den Brink & Benschop, 2012, and consider how equity and equality can be undermined by inequality, and how we might be able to mitigate this issue.
Unfortunately, it’s not just that the approaches didn’t solve the problem. They were at risk of making things worse. Van den Brink and Benschop (2012) described it as the failure to tackle inequality.
When open recruitment is closed
Considering the open recruitment, when Universities stated they had an open recruitment program, the problem was deemed to be solved. Walk away, folks, nothing to see here.
In reality, the preferred candidate was known before the job advert was even placed; sometimes, the role had been written specifically for them. So those managing the process were able to demonstrate they had maintained an “open” process.
Here, in attempting to tick-box equality, what happened was that additional labour was placed upon those applying for a role they never had a chance of getting. You can argue that it’s all a good experience, but that does seem like we are placing the fault back with the women.
Even worse, the mere existence of these practices suggests a lack of fairness in the process, giving support to the idea that those appointed were just better suited to the job. This, in turn, lends weight to the notion that women are not suitable for leadership.
And so the wheel turns.
When mentoring places you as the problem
Similar challenges were identified in the areas of mentoring and coaching, particularly where there is an emphasis on presenting women as a problem to be “fixed.”
You know the type:
- Women need to be more confident, even though they are often punished when they are.
- Women need to lean in – even if they are seen as a troublemaker and excluded from decisions
- Women need to be more resilient – presumably so we can pile even more weight upon them
By all accounts, Women need to be more, but not too much. I disagree, women are enough.
You may recall that Van den Brink and Benschop (2012) found that the problem was primarily due to decision-makers’ perceptions of women as a group, rather than as individuals. So even if women gained something from this training, it would be unlikely to change any outcomes.
This approach can lead to women internalising the problem, assuming that they are, in fact, the problem.
The message is wider, those hearing about the courses can believe that women need that extra help because they are not enough, not because they are discriminated against, which in turn leads to decision makers justifying their behaviour – “you know, women are just less confident, can they handle this role?”.
So we give women more work to become more, while justifying this as a reason they are less, and so we give them less.
Which is a mind-bending reality.
When training for women can help
Don’t get me wrong, these types of training can play a role if they focus on helping the individual understand unhelpful patterns of behaviour in others and how to overcome them. We run a popular course that does just that, naming each behaviour, explaining the cause, and then outlining contextual ways to challenge it.
I love delivering that course, but I know it places more of the burden on the women to deal with the emotional labour of others. Which, frankly, annoys me a little, but I’ve reconciled that it’s better than not knowing, than internalising.
I know it’s not fixing the problem, but I hope it might be an escape hatch around it.
Solutions
So, how do we stop inequality when the people perpetuating it think they are the heroes?
To solve the whole problem, we need to find a way to prevent people from getting in the way of women. Training can be helpful, but the circumstances must be right; at the very least, you need the right environment (as we discussed in our last blog), exemplary leadership, and informed facilitators.
Other tools, such as reverse mentoring, can also be helpful, as can sponsorship; however, it ultimately boils down to understanding your context before designing a solution. Once you have that knowledge, you can determine how far to push and when to pull back, so you are taking steps to improve rather than inadvertently overshooting and landing in the same place on the other side.
Our EDI success checklist
While I wish I could provide a one-size-fits-all solution, designing practical EDI work is a complex process (as this blog series has revealed!). Instead, here is a checklist you can use to help develop effective EDI practices.
- Identify the problem you are addressing.
- Speak with decision makers and marginalised groups to understand the cause of the problem.
- Determine current perceptions of fairness in the culture you are aiming to address.
- Identify the EDI maturity level of your organisation.
- Inform marginalised groups of the findings and engage them in designing solutions.
- Undertake a risk assessment on different potential solutions.
- Have clear measures in place to track impact.
Discussion
Much of the discussion about equity, which focuses on individual needs, could be at risk of falling into the very trap that Van den Brink and Benschop (2012) outline. We must understand and address the inequality that underpins it, or we risk failure at best and backlash at worst. As discussed in our last blog, without a strong underpinning culture of perceived fairness, approaches to addressing inequality are likely to encounter resistance and increased discrimination.
I know it feels easier to go for a perceived easy win, but the truth is that easy can cost you far, far more in the long run.
Learning more about why, where, and when equality approaches work, can help you leap forward, rather than fall back.
Glossary
- Equity: Allocating resources based on need to achieve fair outcomes.
- Equality: Providing the same resources or opportunities to everyone.
- Benevolent inequality: Well-intentioned actions that nonetheless reinforce stereotypes and unequal power.
- Leaky pipeline: The phenomenon of underrepresented groups dropping out of progression at various career stages.
