Gender And Power Dynamics

99% of companies will celebrate women and their achievements today. 99% of companies will talk about empowerment. 1% that will tackle the real issues: 👇 1️⃣ Limited Representation in Decision-Making Women continue to be underrepresented in places where key decisions are being made, resulting in decisions that do not reflect diverse perspectives and priorities. 2️⃣ Unclear Performance Criteria Women often face subjective performance evaluations that lack transparency, leading to disparities in opportunities for advancement and recognition. 3️⃣ Double Standards Gender biases create unequal expectations and treatment, where assertiveness in men may be praised as leadership while the same trait in women is labeled as aggressive or bossy, hampering their professional growth. 4️⃣ Authority Gap Despite qualifications and competence, women encounter barriers to accessing positions of authority, including unconscious biases, lack of mentorship opportunities, and entrenched gender norms that hinder their progress. 👉 To truly empower women in the workplace, it's imperative for companies to confront and address these structural barriers. I hope that today you are in that 1% of companies that will challenge the status quo and pave the way for meaningful change.

How Does Gender Socialization Impact Boys and Men Post-Conflict? 🌍 Family, religious, and customary institutions play a pivotal role in shaping gender norms in post-conflict societies. Post-conflict peace may be restored, but not for all equally. While peace may return, traditional norms still hold the reins, perpetuating male dominance. 🔍 The recent research "Reconstructing Masculinities: Gender Dynamics After Conflict," published by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation / 公益財団法人 笹川平和財団 , Integral Knowledge Asia, and Conciliation Resources, aimed to understand how social institutions socialize gender norms across generations, making them resilient to change without targeted interventions. ⚖️ This study was conducted in Aceh and Maluku in Indonesia, and Bangsamoro in the Philippines, where masculinity is linked to power and violence. These regions struggle to implement the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda because their peace processes largely exclude women, and post-conflict efforts focus more on security and infrastructure than on addressing gender inequality. 👨👩👧👦 The second finding of this study reveals the influence of family, religious, and customary institutions in socializing men and boys into protector and breadwinner roles, while women are confined to caregiving duties. Engaging these institutions is essential for challenging patriarchal norms and promoting equitable gender relations. 🎨 As artivists, we harness the power of responsible image-making to support vital social research and advocacy. Our illustrations in the report vividly portray deep-rooted gender socialization across generations. By bringing these dynamics to life, we aim to foster a better understanding of the transformative approaches needed in peacebuilding. 🖼️ The giant hand in the illustration symbolizes the powerful influence of larger institutions like family, religious, and customary institutions. These forces control men, depicted as puppets bound by strings, and restrict their ability to explore roles beyond traditional gender norms. This visual representation highlights how deeply entrenched societal expectations limit men’s freedom and perpetuate traditional masculinity. #PeaceBuilding #GenderEquality #Masculinity #PostConflict #Gender #ArtActivism #Art

🧾 The cost of being seen isn’t the same for everyone. For women, it’s a "Surchage" no one talks about. 👩 Take Ling, a regional sales director. When she speaks up in strategy meetings, she’s told to “be mindful of her tone.” When she stays quiet, she’s labeled “not strategic enough.” It’s not a leadership gap. It’s a cost-benefit calculation, rigged against her. 👩 Meet Rina, a product lead. She’s built three go-to-market launches. Each one a success. But when promotion time comes, her boss says: “You’re doing great. Let’s not disrupt the team dynamic.” Her competence became the excuse to keep her contained. 👩 And then there’s Julia, a COO candidate. She’s been asked to mentor the next generation of women leaders. But no one’s sponsoring her to be the next CEO. 👉 Because championing others is celebrated. Championing yourself gets complicated. But the problem is, the system charges women extra for the power move: • Speak up? Pay the “too aggressive” tax. • Stay humble? Pay the “forgettable” fee. • Stay silent? Pay with your career.    ⚙️ So how do you stop overpaying for power? You fix it by changing the cost structure. Here are 4 strategic power moves to change the terms: 1️⃣ 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲. Most women try to optimize for comfort: "How can I be visible without making anyone uncomfortable?" Wrong question. Ask: "What does this room need to believe about me to attach power to my name?" Then behave in a way that enforces that belief, consistently! 2️⃣ 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁. Workhorses get thanked. Strategists get promoted. Shift the conversation from "how hard you worked" to "what changed because of you." Make people dependent on your thinking, not your labor. 3️⃣ 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁, 𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗺. When women lead, people often don’t know how to process it. So they fill in the blanks, with assumptions. Don’t let the room guess. Tell them why you’re doing what you’re doing. Say 👉 "I’m recommending this because it moves us closer to the long-term goal." 👉 "I’m raising this because keeping quiet will cost us more later." 4️⃣ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗼𝗺’𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Decisions about you happen in rooms you’re not in. Those rooms won’t remember your to-do list, they’ll remember the shortcut version of you. Make sure the phrase people repeat about you is a power narrative, not a service narrative. Keen to own your narrative? 📅 Join our online workshop on July 24th 7:30 to 9pm SGT 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸 👉 https://lnkd.in/gVT2Y59Q 👈 For women who are done paying extra just to be in the room. 👊 Because if you keep paying the power tax quietly, you’ll be subsidizing other people’s promotions forever.

Just 29% of women in the C-suite say they aspire to the CEO role. For men, it’s 49%. That gap isn’t about ambition. It’s about environment. Too many women look at the CEO role and see: - Unsustainable pressure - A narrow definition of leadership - A personal cost they’re not willing to pay And they’re not wrong to question it. When leadership is modelled as constant availability, aggression over judgement, and burnout as a badge of honour, opting out can feel like self-preservation, not a lack of drive. But here’s the problem: When fewer women aspire to the top job, the system reinforces itself. Less representation. Fewer role models. The same leadership norms, repeated. So how do we change the conversation? → First, we need to broaden what leadership looks like. There is more than one way to be an effective CEO… and we should celebrate different styles, not punish them. → Second, we need visible pathways. Women need to see leaders who are building power and sustainable lives, not choosing one at the expense of the other. → Third, this isn’t a women-only issue. Male allies matter. Boards matter. Investors matter. If we want different outcomes, we need different signals about what success looks like. Aspiration doesn’t disappear in a vacuum. It’s shaped by what people believe is possible and worth it. If we want more women to aim for the CEO role, we need to make it a role they actually want to step into. 📷 - the always brilliant The Female Quotient

Leaders think that global #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion work means imposing the same one-size-fits-all programs onto everyone and calling that progress. This couldn't be more wrong. Global work done right means ensuring the same HIGH STANDARDS for everyone, achieved by uniquely understanding the contexts different audiences operate in. Your workers in Mumbai should feel just as much a sense of fairness at work as your workers in Stockholm, Austin, and Lisbon do, even though their contexts couldn't be more different. Your workers in Perth should feel the same high level of respect at work as your workers in Istanbul, Osaka, and São Paulo do, even though their contexts couldn't be more different. How can any global organization achieve this? The answer is certainly not what most do at present, where "global DEI work" most often takes the form of a single centrally-produced event or program, often recorded in the US or occasionally the UK or EU, that later gets shared with other regions after the fact with subtitles in the corresponding language (if that). As if a US-based speaker talking about US issues could remove the unique barriers to equity and inclusion in a Latin American context, or offer guidance that meshes with East Asian workplace norms. Global organizations that do DEI work right set their goals from the top, then push decision making down into each region to solve their unique challenges in their unique contexts. The barriers to fairness in Mumbai are not the same barriers to fairness in Stockholm, Austin, and Lisbon. The barriers to respect in Perth are not the same barriers to respect in Istanbul, Osaka, and São Paulo. To remove those barriers and achieve high standards of thriving, success, and wellbeing, global companies MUST place the power and autonomy into leaders with expertise and skill creating change in their respective contexts, and embolden them to solve problems — even if their solutions may not appear to make sense at first glance to an outsider. The role of global leaders is not to prescribe solutions, but to articulate shared goals, craft a shared narrative for their importance to the business, and coordinate regional leadership to ensure that even as solutions might diverge, the focus on achieving high standards, and doing so according to the organization's values, does not waver. As it turns out, the most critical talent when it comes to global DEI work is NOT a brilliant global leader who understands a little bit about DEI work in every region, but instead many, many brilliant local leaders who understand everything there is to know about DEI work in their specific context. With the proper resourcing and support, it's these local leaders who will solve problems and reimagine workplaces in ways global executives could never imagine. The odds that your global organization has recognized this are low, and that needs to change.

Men still dominate corporate power. That’s not opinion. That’s data. Across the GCC region, women hold less than 10% of board seats. In many large corporates globally, C-suite representation is still heavily male. So yes ,equality in leadership is still a gap. But here’s what’s interesting. After nearly a decade of working with GCCs and large corporate teams, I’ve seen a shift inside boardrooms. The outperforming centres are not just hiring women. They are trusting them with revenue charters. With transformation mandates. With cross-border strategy. And lately, many of these conversations are happening in the rooms where I’m invited to build women leadership capability , not around confidence, but around commercial authority. That’s the real shift. The question is: Are organisations truly ready to hand over business power to women — or are we still more comfortable keeping authority male? Two takeaways for leaders: • Develop women for P&L, not just people leadership. • Move from mentorship to real sponsorship. Because the next wave of growth won’t be built on inclusion slides. It will be built on who holds the decision-making power. Curious 🙈 inside your organisation, is business authority still male-dominated? #womenleadership #GCC

Today we release the Champions of Change Coalition “2025 Impact Report”. This is the largest voluntary disclosure of progress towards workplace gender equality in the world, sharing data, actions and insights from our 200+ Members, representing organisations across every major sector. It reflects both year-on-year improvement and the long-term impact of a collective leadership strategy that has been sustained and expanded since 2010. This year’s report confirms that when leadership is visible, action-oriented and accountable, progress follows. Members are strengthening the systems, policies and cultural settings that enable equality to take hold. For example: • 46% of ASX 200-listed Member organisations have achieved gender-balanced executive leadership teams, compared with 31% across the broader ASX 200. • Gender balance in overall representation and Board positions has reached our 40:40:20 target. • 97% of Member organisations are mainstreaming flexible work with policy, tools, technology and leadership support, while 78% are taking action to enable flexible work for frontline and operational workers. • 79% of Members have a strategy and policy in place to improve men’s uptake of parental leave. • Continued leadership on domestic and family violence prevention and response, including employee supports, approaches for responding to employees who may be using violence, and initiatives that deliver positive community impact. It’s also inspiring to see how the Coalition continues to evolve. Around 30% of our Members are now women – a powerful reflection of the gender-equal and inclusive leadership we seek to model and embed across every sector. At the same time, national and Coalition data shows progress is slowing in some areas: • Persistent over-representation of men in leadership and pipeline roles continues, reinforced by outdated models of what it takes to succeed as a CEO. • Built-in barriers continue to channel women and men into different types of jobs, driven by entrenched norms, inflexible work arrangements and work/pay systems that disadvantage people with caring responsibilities. • Progress on gender equality remains slow or stalled in key industries, particularly those facing labour shortages. Societal shifts, fatigue and competing priorities can easily erode hard-won gains. This is a moment that demands courage and conviction to ensure equality and inclusion are built into the design and leadership of every organisation. I am grateful to every Member, Implementation Leader, Convenor and partner who continues to invest their influence, time and resources in this shared effort. Progress in this report belongs to you. Together, we are building stronger organisations, fairer and more inclusive workplaces and shaping a more equal and prosperous society for all. Explore the “2025 Impact Report": https://lnkd.in/gaRrzn-q #ChampionsOfChangeCoalition #ImpactReport #GenderEquality

Following the publication of the latest FTSE Women Leaders Review, the FT asks an interesting question, why are there still so few women CEO's? A decade ago when I started studying this cohort for my PhD, there were 10 female CEOs in the FTSE 100. There are now 8, with Meg O'Neill, as incoming CEO for BP, swelling the ranks by 1. I find it infuriating that we are not outraged by the negative trajectory of this number, nor are enough organisations rushing to invest in their female executive leadership pipeline, in the hopes of reversing the trend in the next ten years. Instead, we have rested on our organisational laurels celebrating the parity of women on Boards, which has successfully reached an average of 40%, sometimes 50%. At the risk of repeating myself, this positive, uplifting trend is largely achieved through the recruitment of NEDs, female non-executive directors. That is, part-time, senior, self employed, capable women, who have exited organisations rather than stepped up into executive positions. Just in case you can't download this article, the reasons cited in this article as to why there are so few female CEOs can be boiled down to: *Weak executive pipelines, where women have historically been less likely to hold high-visibility, profit-centre roles that are traditional feeders to CEO positions; *Cultural biases that can make boards and search committees lean towards candidates with traditional leadership profiles (ie, men, who are considered 'seasoned pros' or 'safer bets'); *Scrutiny and tenure pressures, with some studies suggesting women CEOs face harsher performance expectations and higher turnover. Adding to this, I believe organisations lack the will and drive to resolve this issue (or even see it as a major systemic problem?). The solutions are clear and have been highlighted for years, and include strengthening the executive pipeline and succession; increasing access to sponsorship and advocacy; creating visibility for women in revenue generating and strategic roles, and challenging structural barriers that restrict progression. Is it little wonder that so many talented women, capable of stepping up, choose instead to step out, carving their own talented path, in their own way, their own time and their own chosen colleagues? Whilst I celebrate their brilliant revolt, I remain sad how few organisations are fighting to retain their senior women, and desiring gender balanced executive power.

I wrote a few weeks ago about the multiple glass ceilings women have to break through to get to the C-Suite. Anjli Raval’s piece last week was a (disappointing and frustrating) confirmation that the battle doesn't end when you get to board level: while we’re making progress in achieving greater female representation on boards, we’re not seeing that progress reflected in top executive positions. Latest research from FTSE Women Leaders Review Women Leaders shows that, while two-thirds of the UK’s FTSE 350 companies have 40% female representation on boards, less than one-fifth have achieved that for executive leadership roles. We were initially optimistic that more women at board level would result in greater CEO representation, but it’s clear this more passive approach isn’t going to cut it. Tamara Box from the brilliant 30% Club UK% Club explains “the thinking was, if you got more women on boards, you would see the trickle-down and get more women into executive positions. That didn't happen." From poor senior female leadership talent pipelines to the motherhood penalty, there are a myriad of reasons why we’re facing such a stark CEO gender gap. It’s clear that we’re not structuring our corporate hiring, promoting, or supporting systems to meet the needs of working women. I’d argue some of this is because we’re trying to tweak systems that weren’t built with women in mind – we can’t even get office temperatures right! What we actually need is a fundamental rethink of how we build and structure companies in ways that equally support men and women, acknowledging their different needs and priorities. We can’t edit the rule book; we’re going to need to rewrite a lot of it.

Prof. Claudia Goldin made history by becoming the first woman to win a solo Nobel Prize in Economics. She was recognized for her ground-breaking work on the key drivers behind gender differences in the labour market. Goldin’s work shows that although historical factors such as disparities in education have narrowed in modern times, the earnings gap between men and women remains.   One reason for this is a lack of opportunities. This is where behavioural science may be able to help by identifying implicit biases and engineering a choice architecture to help tackle them.   Acknowledging the difficulty in proving that discrimination on the basis of gender in the workforce exists, Goldin and her colleagues at Harvard University turned their attention to one occupation which attempted to combat gender-biased hiring – musicians.   Before 1980, none of the “Big 5” symphony orchestras in the U.S. contained more than 12% female musicians due to both implicit and explicit biases in the hiring process. To combat these, orchestras began implementing “blind” auditions – that is, the candidate performed behind a screen so that the committee could not identify them as male or female.   This helped a little, but less than expected until they added a carpet.   What?   It turned out that the committee could hear the click of women’s shoes as they walked on stage and even that was sufficient to bias their decisions!   Analyzing data from 11 orchestras who implemented these changes revealed some shocking statistics. By hiding the identity of the musician in the audition, there was a 50% increased likelihood of a female musician progressing to the next round of auditions.   Goldin further estimated that blind auditions accounted for about 25% of the increase in the number of female orchestra musicians from 1970 to 1996. (Other factors like training more female musicians also contributed to this growth).   So, what does this teach us? 👉 Being blind to the #gender (as well as to other things like race) can improve impartiality in #hiring 👉 Biases are persistent and creep into decision making through the smallest of gaps (e.g. no carpet!) 👉 A carefully designed choice architecture can help to mitigate hiring biases and enhance #equity in the workplace Do you know of other innovative ways organisations are changing hiring processes to be as unbiased as possible?   #DiversityAndInclusion