Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Leaders Can Promote Gender Equity Without Deepening Polarization − Here’s How

Opinion

Americans largely agree that women have made significant gains in the workplace over the past two decades. But what about men? While many Americans believe women are thriving, over half believe men’s progress has stalled or even reversed.

To make matters more complex, recent research has revealed a massive divide along gender and partisan lines. The majority of Republican men think full gender equity in America has been achieved, while the majority of Democratic women think there’s still work to be done.


As researchers at the Rutgers Center for Women in Business, we think this divide matters a lot. And for business leaders, this gap isn’t just a social or political issue. It’s a leadership challenge with direct implications for team cohesion and morale. If gender equity efforts are seen by some employees as a loss rather than a collective gain, leaders risk inadvertently entrenching division.

When equity feels like a loss

Efforts to advance gender equity often come with the reassurance that equality isn’t a zero-sum game – that women’s advancement need not come at men’s expense. Data backs this up, showing, for example, that having gender-diverse executive teams can boost company profits by as much as 21%.

Yet workers’ perceptions of gender equity efforts tell another story.

For example, 61% of Americans believe changing gender norms have made it easier for women to be successful at work, but only 36% say the same for men. What’s more, 61% of men think women have equal job opportunities, but only 33% of women believe the same thing.

These differences reveal an important truth: Perception, not policy alone, shapes how equity efforts are received.

Involving men in the equity conversation

Research suggests men and women associate power with different psychological outcomes. Men are more likely to associate power with control, while for women, power is more often linked to a feeling of freedom. As a result, efforts to share power may feel more liberating to women but destabilizing to men – particularly to those already in power.

But this doesn’t mean one’s gain needs to come at another’s expense – just that people make sense of change through the lens of their own identities and experiences.

When men perceive progress for women as a threat to their status or opportunity, resistance grows, even in the face of data suggesting otherwise. This cycle becomes especially difficult to break because it requires challenging one’s own beliefs, which isn’t always easy.

This is why learning about others’ experiences is so useful. For example, a man and a woman might be equally ambitious and capable, but perhaps only one of them experiences being routinely interrupted in meetings. These differences in personal history and lived experience shape how work environments are interpreted and therefore navigated.

Understanding this diversity of perspectives and discussing lived experiences can help gender equity efforts become more effective. Building a truly equitable future requires acknowledging that feelings about efforts required to reach that future may differ widely.

With that in mind, here are some best practices for leaders to consider as they navigate the changing landscape.

Preparing for differences in perspective

Avoid zero-sum thinking. If men think gender equity efforts will erode their opportunities or diminish their own power, they’ll disengage. Leaders should instead frame equity as essential to team and business success – and ground conversations in metrics that show how inclusion drives outcomes.

Know that the stakes may vary. Women may see gender equity as a matter of justice or even survival, and when stakes are existential, compromise can be difficult. At the same time, they may experience organizational progress toward gender equity as a personal win. Publicizing these changes and their mutually beneficial gains can help to create a more cohesive team where everyone can thrive.

Be aware that different clocks are ticking. Some men may view change as happening too quickly, destabilizing established norms. Women, on the other hand, may feel progress is too slow, given centuries of systemic inequity. Holding both views as worthy of respect requires teamwork. Encourage dialogue where the goal is mutual understanding rather than unity.

Building coalitions around shared experiences

Promote policies that benefit everyone. By promoting policies such as hybrid work and parental leave that benefit everyone, workplaces will attract and retain a more diverse workforce, which leads to greater innovation. Encourage men to take advantage of these policies and ensure your company culture makes it acceptable to do so. This enables men to actually experience the benefit of these initiatives. Align efforts around shared values – such as the desire for healthier families, better education or stronger economies.

Use both/and thinking. Supporting men who express fears about status loss can open space for dialogue. Provide that space. At the same time, acknowledge the ongoing struggles women continue to face and their fears about workplaces returning to “the way they used to be.” One viewpoint does not need to negate the other.

Prioritize lived experience. Rather than insisting that everyone see gender equity the same way, find ways for men to experience mutually beneficial initiatives. Then, encourage dialogue about experiences rather than ideas.

Bridge divides with dialogue

Mixed mentorship matters. Pairing employees with mentors of different backgrounds – across gender, race, age, department or seniority level – can help them cultivate curiosity and learn from one another.

Activate resource groups. Groups focused on cross-cultural engagement provide employees with a platform to discuss challenges, share experiences and collaborate on inclusion initiatives. Additionally, encouraging allies to participate in employee resource groups and business resource groups fosters increased openness and understanding. Leaders can support groups by providing resources, visibility and executive sponsorship.

Embrace discomfort. In general, people work to avoid feeling uncomfortable. However, discomfort is often necessary for growth. Starting with this premise and encouraging thoughtful, open and honest discussions about sensitive topics and potential fears can help foster transparency and build trust. Leaders can facilitate these conversations through town halls, roundtable discussions or dedicated dialogue sessions.

Progress depends not just on metrics and policies but on trust, communication and humility. When people feel seen and heard – whether they’re feeling empowered or uncertain – they’re more likely to engage.

In other words, the real opportunity isn’t to win an argument about whether gender equity is “done,” but to build organizations where everyone can see a future for themselves in the workplace – and feel as if they have a role in shaping it.

Leaders Can Promote Gender Equity Without Deepening Polarization − Here’s How was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.

Colleen Tolan is a postdoctoral researcher for the Center for Women in Business at Rutgers University.

Lisa Kaplowitz is an associate professor & executive director, for the Center for Women in Business at Rutgers University.

Read More

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people in business attire walking into an office.

Dr. Valentina Greco reflects on how accent bias, internalized gatekeeping, and hidden prejudices shape academia—and how true change begins by confronting our own discomfort.

Getty Images, Marco VDM

How Do We Become the Gatekeepers?

“Do you have a moment?”

I turned and saw my senior colleague, Paul (not his real name), a mentor and sponsor, at my office door.

Keep ReadingShow less
So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

Conceptual image of multiple human face shapes in a variety of colors illustrating different races

Getty Images

So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

It is no secret that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack in our country. They have been blamed for undermining free speech, meritocracy, and America itself. The University of Virginia is the latest to settle with the government and walk away from its DEI initiatives rather than defend its programs or find a new solution.

Those who decry DEI say they do so in the name of meritocracy. They argue that those who benefit from DEI programs do so at the expense of other, more qualified individuals, and that these programs are weakening professions such as our military, science, education, and healthcare. But these arguments have it exactly backwards. DEI programs were never designed to give privilege to underrepresented people. They were put in place to chip away at discrimination and nepotism, both concepts that are antithetical to meritocracy.

Keep ReadingShow less