Blog

There is something fundamentally wrong in the way ’Gender Diversity’ is being defined.

The other day, I interviewed a young, driven HR manager from a fairly well known organisation. In our discussion on diversity, she proudly showcased change in ratios of women recruited from campuses. These were an outcome of a pure ‘number focus’ … She may well have been from the sales team with the month end being the campus day zero!

Let’s look at how ‘Gender Diversity’ is being defined today. Wikipedia describes it as “Gender diversity is equitable or fair representation between genders. Gender diversity most commonly refers to an equitable ratio of men and women, but may also include non-binary gender categories.” The concept focuses on the numeric aspect of the “balance” that every organization is striving to achieve today.

Yet, the problem lies beyond numbers. Many popular studies suggest that the percentage of women rising to senior management in most organizations decline drastically. A study by World Economic Forum claims that 29% of working women in Asia drop out of work between junior and mid-level positions.

Then, why the focus on the numbers recruited? All it does is, gets organisations into a vicious circle of targeted hiring to fill the gaps created by and to plan for attrition.

And attrition comes at a cost- which is not just financial. The repercussions are lasting.

Hence, a number driven approach is, in my opinion is incomplete. A systematic approach is needed to achieve gender diversity within the organizations.

The focus needs to be towards creating an ecosystem that understands and supports diversity. It is a way of working that is inclusive and supports the needs of a diverse set of employees. The ecosystem transcends across  the vision, to the policies and processes, to leadership and to the infrastructure. And to build a sustainable ecosystem, It is critical to understand the root cause for the imbalance and the solutioning becomes simpler with greater and sustainable impact.

As perfectly put by Theresa J. Whitmarsh, Executive Director of the Washington State Investment Board at the annual meeting of World Economic Forum- “If you exclude 50% of the talent pool, it’s no wonder you find yourself in a war for talent.”

Author: Sonica Aron

You can also read the article here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/exploring-gender-diversity-beyond-numbers-sonica-aron/

Sonica, I have a problem she said… I have an employee who was on maternity leave for almost half the year. She has not done more than half the things she was supposed to do. How do I rate her on her performance? This was my old coachee working in a well-known durables organisation.

But, the things she did, did she do them well? I asked.
Yes, she exceeded them. If those were her only KRAs, it would be the top rating. But the things she couldn’t do, there were others who pitched for the departments KRAs and they also will need recognition. I need to fit people in the bell curve and who do I put where?
If there were no constraints what would you do, I asked? …

This conundrum is faced by most managers whose female employees go on maternity leave. Choices made here are critical. The impact is lasting on the individual, the team and the organisation.

This never ending loop is due to inevitable conflicts between the personal and professional life stages of an employee, and a lack of understanding and sensitivity around life stages. It’s not just about early stages of marriage or maternity, the conflict comes up when a partner/spouse needs to relocate, class X and XII exams, parental illness etc. The social conditioning of over thousands of years usually rests most of these responsibilities on the shoulders of women, and therein lies the issue.

For the individual, the way an organisation treats her, at such crucial moments and life stages, would have a strong impact on her long term view on the organisation and continuity. If not handled consistently, for the team, there can be potential disgruntlement, wink-wink nod-nod banter on ‘wish we were diversity’ from male colleagues. And the organisation puts its culture on risk with the decisions made at these points of time.

The result is an incorrect diversity ratio, reluctance about hiring women employees, forced diversity hiring decisions and unspoken elements in the interpersonal relationship amongst members across the organization.

Yet, many organisations don’t recognize this issue and don’t deal with it systemically.

What is needed is a wholistic approach, encompassing policies and processes, that enable individuals to navigate through life stages, without having to compromise on professional goals and aspirations.

These then need to be communicated in a tone that is well received across both genders. When populated with the buy-in and alignment of senior leaders and managers it slowly becomes a part of the ‘ethos’ of the organisation. It enables all managers to take calls that help build an inclusive culture and associates understand, appreciate and develop a sense of responsibility and respect towards the proactivity.

A woman’s career need not devolve into a forced choice of “Career vs personal life”. A systemic approach can help minimise the impact of life stages on careers.
You can also read the article here:

Author: Sonica Aron

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/building-organisation-supports-diversity-needs-holistic-sonica-aron/