A recent McKinsey Women in the Workplace report suggests the glass ceiling is not necessarily the key barrier to women achieving senior leadership status in 2023. It is a much bigger problem that occurs early in their careers.
‘The broken rung’, as the October report labels it, refers to the hurdle women face when stepping up to their first management role. The report indicates 87 women are promoted for every 100 men. This figure falls dramatically for women of colour. And that it is at the first step in their career, this broken rung, that women fall behind and cannot catch up. The practical implication is that with fewer women to promote due to gender disparity in early promotions, a 60/40 representation in senior roles is often the best-case scenario. It is important to note that this is not the case across all industries, with some favouring one gender significantly and, therefore, having greater representation.
According to McKinsey, every organisation should know three things about the broken rung:
· Women are not responsible for it
· It is driven primarily by bias
· Until the broken rung is fixed, gender parity in senior leadership remains out of reach
Almost a quarter of women under 30 say their age has contributed to them missing out on a raise, promotion, or chance to get ahead.
What does gender bias look like in Australia?
Plan International released its Gender Compass report this year, which can be helpful for workplaces looking to address unconscious biases about gender equality. Encouragingly, it states, gender equality was considered important by 90% of research participants, with 41% rejecting the idea that gender equality has mostly or already been achieved. Furthermore, 72% favoured actions by individuals, businesses and/or governments to improve gender equality in Australia.
The report identified some attitudes, however, that may obstruct gender equality. Only 58% agreed that transgender and non-binary people should have the same rights, opportunities and outcomes as cisgender people. The same number agreed that some jobs are naturally suited to men and some to women. Almost 30% believe equality doesn’t make sense due to biology, and a quarter that families function well, and children are best supported, when mothers do the caring. These beliefs can result in biases that impact hiring decisions, project roles and promotions in organisations.
The overarching outcome of the Gender Compass report confirms a difference between the overall earnings of women and men in Australia (i.e., there is a gender pay gap), and senior roles in business and industry remain primarily occupied by men. Realistically, it isn’t this simple, and there are many other attitudes and factors listed in the report that are worth exploring.
How do we understand gender bias and challenge it?
Gender Compass is a first-of-its-kind research project that segments the broader Australian public into six groups according to their beliefs, policy preferences and behaviours concerning gender equality: trailblazers (19%), hopefuls (24%), conflicted (12%), moderate (23%), indifferent (6%) and rejector (17%). This is essential data to assist change management. Having a greater understanding of attitudes and biases (conscious and unconscious) and the automatic associations that lead to decisions can be helpful.
We have previously discussed common biases: likability bias, maternal bias, intersectionality bias and performance bias. A recent Harvard Business Review dissects new developments in performance as carers spend less time in the office. This has resulted in experience, proximity and in-group/out-group biases.
Experience bias occurs when tasks that are easy to define are overvalued. For example, women may spend more time boosting organisational culture or research that is more difficult to attribute to individuals, particularly in the short term. And, since the pandemic, providing mental health support has become increasingly essential, and these responsibilities fall disproportionately on women. Setting individualised goals with tailored metrics that incorporate these contributions can assist in reducing this bias. The second is to look at tasks in terms of timeframes and levels of difficulty.
Another bias identified was proximity bias, the tendency to think those you can physically see or speak to are doing the most work. Anchor days and more regular meetings where people can discuss achievements assist in reducing this bias. However, leaders must be aware and play a conscious role in recognising and promoting their high-performing employees fairly.
The last bias is one everyone will be familiar with and, to some extent, crosses over the likability bias. In-group/out-group bias is common, especially for those not able to go to lunches or after-work drinks. While both men and women are subject to this bias, it generally impacts women more because they are underrepresented in leadership.
Understanding and action are necessary to address the broken rung, starting with awareness and education. One approach will not necessarily be suitable for all, which is why the segmentation detailed in the Gender Compass research is important. If knowledge is power, recognising the broken rung and understanding different attitudes can help organisations mend it.
