Is there a gendered allocation of work/roles?

A gendered allocation of roles creates a workplace characterised by gender segregation and very often a gender pay gap – women may be over-represented in less secure, lower paid, lower status and less responsible roles and under-represented in senior, management or leadership roles, or it can be more informal like women being asked to take minutes, get refreshments for a meeting or perform administrative tasks. Where a gendered allocation of work exists, that work is usually not valued as highly including in monetary terms. As well as looking at the formal roles, consider the unofficial roles like Fire Officers, who puts the wheelie bins out, who arranges morning teas, who gets the milk for the fridge?

Are business discussions and decisions made in arenas that may exclude women or in activities in which women cannot or prefer not to participate?

Such as the golf course, at smoko, gentlemen’s clubs, exclusive male-only lunch clubs, etc. These practices can create a culture of insiders and outsiders, and sanction other excluding practices. Women may not be in a position or may prefer not to participate in these social and/or networking activities for a range of reasons. This can lead to isolation, having limited access to informal mentoring or being left out of the loop on information vital to properly undertaking your role and/or gaining a broader perspective.

Are women trying to do their work well sidelined or stymied?

This can take multiple forms – not being offered training, being allocated less responsible work generally or on return from career break, being excluded from high-level projects, not being defended when subjected to stereotyping or malicious gossip, habitual dismissal of the value of your work and a failure to defend your value by the relevant manager. It can range from not being cc’d on relevant emails to the appropriation of your initiatives by someone who then claims them as their own. Usually it’s insidious and infuriating.

Is diversity and inclusion seen as “women’s work” and not part of the organisation’s core work or the bottom line?

If the only advocates for diversity and inclusion in the organisation are women – no champions of change, or semi-committed champions who champion women’s work outwardly but not beyond the formal structures, the conversation about the role of diversity and inclusion is not being seen as central to the bottom line. If the diversity discussion never gets beyond the basics with gender initiatives regarded either openly or behind the scenes as unfairly favouring women and disadvantaging men, and diversity initiatives fall to the bottom of the pile, then diversity is not being regarded as one of the primary means of improving productivity at the enterprise level.

The potential for diversity initiatives to deliver a diversity advantage in terms of innovation, problem-solving, decision-making, better governance, increased sales and improved business performance is being lost.

Does the workplace culture differentially impact men and women? Do women have to work twice as hard to have their value recognised?

Again, this can take multiple forms including a culture of long hours that disadvantages those with carer responsibilities, sexist or inappropriate banter that is sometimes difficult to distance yourself from, a tolerance for sexist practices, language and behaviours, a tolerance for talking over women in meetings, promoting only from the ranks of full-time staff, KPIs or measures of outcomes that disadvantage women or reinforce unconscious bias in workplace practices.

Is there a gendered allocation of activities involving travel?

Travel and in turn access to networking and professional development may be more difficult for those with carer responsibilities, or the assumption can be made that a person with carer responsibilities will not be available so they may not be invited to take part in activities requiring travel.

Do you ever feel annoyed with yourself that you went along with a sexist joke rather than objecting and wish you’d have thought of what to say at the time?

Women who do not take part in inappropriate or sexist banter may risk being stereotyped as “not a good sport”, prudish, lacking a sense of humour and “can’t take a joke”. This approach can be taken in the name of a “modern” liberated workplace but what’s really going on is a tolerance for inappropriate practices and a failure to set and observe respectful workplace boundaries and/or different cultures.

Are work meetings held outside school hours, important deadlines set and emails sent after hours?

These workplace practices clearly limit the participation of those with carer responsibilities.

Are senior, management and leadership roles selected from those with direct, confident, powerful and charismatic leadership styles?

Recognising only this form of leadership style marginalises those who lead in different ways such as those influencing by consensus and teamwork, who choose not to promote themselves and don’t speak assertively in leadership meetings for cultural reasons or by choice.

Is there a lack of female role models in senior, management and leadership roles? Do the dynamics of meetings marginalise women’s contribution?

Where women lack the old boys’ networks, there may be a lack of contacts higher up in the organisation and beyond, so opportunities to assist with advancement or to provide formal or informal mentoring are fewer. An absence of modelling of successful managers and leaders who have effectively balanced work and family responsibilities and/or who have different leadership styles makes it more difficult to broaden the talent pool from which leaders and managers are selected. The gender dynamics of communication at meetings can marginalise women’s contribution.

Are those who work part-time seen as less committed to their work or less professional?

Those who work part-time work can be stereotyped as less professional and less committed to their work. There is no evidence to support this.

Do women who don’t apprise their manager of their accomplishments and actively seek and receive feedback fail to receive proper credit for their work?

Those who put their head down and work hard, innovate or exceed KPIs but don’t self-promote can be at a disadvantage in a workplace that relies on these strategies for advancement.

Are senior women negatively stereotyped?

Negative stereotyping takes many forms but almost always functions to diminish the credibility and respect for the relevant professional. Women can be viewed as bringing a set of “deficiencies” to the workplace, including a lack of competitiveness, risk taking, hard-nosed negotiation skills or assertiveness or as having too “consultative” a style, or conversely as being bitchy, ballbusters or nags if they’re seen as overly assertive.

Are there embedded and entrenched bias in the policies, rules, attitudes and practices in your workplace?

Unconscious bias takes many forms, the most common being that recruitment and advancement is underpinned by in-group bias – this means that those doing the recruiting and responsible for advancement decision-making favour those like themselves and this can perpetuate bias and disadvantage for women. This can occur even in workplaces which consider their advancement strategies merit-based.