By JT Godfrey
Women and individuals with minoritized identities who reach senior executive positions often face more intense scrutiny. Previous research has recommended that organizations provide critical stakeholders with specific, relevant, or personalized information about a leader to reduce negative biases. However, in her recently published research, Aparna Joshi, professor of management and organizations, questions this recommendation and explores a “stakeholder-first” approach to mitigate biased negative stereotypes and criticisms against diverse leaders.
In her paper, “A New Perspective on Gender Bias in the Upper Echelons: Why Stakeholder Variability Matters,” Joshi and her collaborators revisit previous assumptions about biased reactions to women in leadership positions. Notably, previous research doesn’t take into account increasing levels of political polarization that create deep fissures in how varied audiences might respond to information about the leader. As polarization has increased, previous strategies to prevent biases by providing more information about the leader may simply be ignored or even used to support and reinforce existing biases. This tendency can sometimes lead to misinformation, increasingly sharp criticism, pushback, and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes directed toward women leaders.
In the following Q&A, Joshi shared a few key insights into the study and how organizations can implement its findings to create less friction in diversely led organizations.
Question: The paper addresses an increase in polarization in the workplace and its impact on women leaders. What are some of the signs of this phenomenon?
A: The idea that we are living in a highly polarized society is, of course, widely recognized. Not surprisingly, this polarization has also filtered into workplaces which are certainly not immune to these trends. In fact, the boundary between organizations and the society at large is highly porous. We see signs of this when we hear some politicians describing women leaders, who may be under scrutiny during an organizational crisis or misstep, as “DEI hires” or when we see social media influencers, some who have been referred to as “conflict entrepreneurs,” shaping the narrative about women leaders during an organizational crisis.
While organizations routinely experience crises and failure, the manner in which women leaders are scrutinized during these events is often tinged with a higher intensity of personally directed negative attacks than their male counterparts. Ultimately, being caught in the crosshairs of this type of scrutiny is likely to result in women’s turnover and, as such, is a setback for organizational efforts aimed at increasing inclusion at its highest levels. Recognizing and perhaps offsetting the role of these external influences on leaders is, therefore, critical.
Q: What are some of the key differences you’ve found between traditional approaches and your stakeholder-first approach to addressing gender biases?
A: I have been studying gender bias in leadership for many years, and in the past, the focus has been on addressing gender bias using a “one size fits all” approach (e.g., implicit bias training) or through leadership development programs targeted at high potential women. While well-intentioned, it’s clear that this approach has not moved the needle forward, nor is it likely to be adequate in the current environment.
In our paper, we call for organizational approaches that ask not what women can do differently but what organizations and their stakeholders can do differently to enable progress. We recommend mapping stakeholders based on their existing relationships with the firm and its leadership – that is, how invested are stakeholders in the organization’s success? How closely do they engage with the leader and her team? Based on where stakeholders stand with respect to these questions, we suggest developing customized strategies to resist or deter gender biases.
Q: How do you recommend organizations address the spread of misinformation about a leader in a polarized environment?
A; Indeed, this is going to be an ongoing challenge. We don’t have all the answers to this question as yet. But our research takes a first step. For instance, identifying stakeholders who may be engaged and invested in the leader’s and the organization’s success is the first step because this group can be harnessed as potential high-level allies for the focal leader. At the same time, it would also be important to identify which stakeholders are less invested and disengaged and, hence, more susceptible to disinformation.
For this latter set, simply providing more information may not be ideal. Rather, involving the more engaged and invested stakeholders in developing a relational approach may help ward off susceptibility to other negative influences. Not all stakeholders are at the extreme ends of the spectrum either. That is, it would be simplistic to assume that stakeholders are either highly engaged/invested or simply disinvested/distracted.
There may be stakeholders who are “in between” these two extremes. For instance, some stakeholders may not have an opportunity to work closely with the leader but may still be invested in the leader’s success. We discuss why this set of stakeholders might be more receptive to first-hand information about the leader’s capability through other senior leaders. Overall, in our paper we detail customized ways to relate and communicate with different stakeholders. These strategies are based on identifying stakeholders’ motivations and the sources of their uncertainty or anxiety. We develop a typology to characterize various stakeholders and appropriate ways to engage them in reducing negative biases towards leaders during crises.
Q: What role does organizational culture play in either mitigating or exacerbating biases against leaders?
A: In the current context, developing an inclusive culture that is resilient to polarized external influences is important. A culture that explicitly states and transparently displays the organization’s commitment to excellence and inclusion is a key factor here. Inclusion and Excellence need to be conveyed as a “both-and.” Other organizational leaders, such as senior executives and the outgoing leader (in situations where a focal leader is a new incumbent), also need to model this commitment visibly and often.
Q: Would you recommend different strategies for companies preparing to hire a woman in leadership roles compared to those that already have women in leadership positions?
A: Leadership transition planning for visible leadership positions should go hand in hand with the stakeholder management approach discussed above. In preparing an incoming woman leader, a key actor is the outgoing leader. Our past research on incoming women CEOs across Fortune 500 companies shows that the predecessor sets the stage for how stakeholders respond to the incoming leader.
The cultural signals that I noted above are often set by the outgoing leader. In all the cases in which the newly appointed CEOs successfully led the firm to higher performance and even turned around struggling firms, the predecessor played an important role. Conversely, these outgoing CEOs can also be harmful and detract from a smooth transition that sets the leader up for success. The role of the outgoing leader is a key differentiator between a new leader and an incumbent.