Efforts to increase the number of women in technology careers have been made for years; despite this, women exit the technology industry at a faster rate than men. According to Harvard Business Review, ‘In the US, women working in SET [science, engineering, and technology] fields are 45% more likely than their male peers to leave the industry within the year’ (Hewlett, 2014). Furthermore, women leave science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) fields not only at greater rates than men but also more than women in other industries (Glass et al., 2013). This does not suggest that the aforementioned efforts have been in vain; indeed, one can imagine how much faster might those exits be, and how much lower might the total number of women in the industry be, without such work. However, much of it has been left to women to do, for women to solve, for women to challenge.

According to BCS (2020), women made up just 17% of the total number of IT specialists in the UK in 2019. Imagine the potential impact if even just half of the remaining 83% – the men – were active in retaining and developing women in technology.

The reasons why women leave companies – and in some cases the technology industry altogether – are many and varied. Research places importance on belonging (Catalyst, 2014), which can be hard to feel when you are the only woman in the team, the room, the office or even the company. Women have reported hostile work environments, inequality in pay, lack of role models (Catalyst, 2014) and more; all are causes of feeling isolated or excluded.

What it takes to retain and progress women in technology may also vary depending upon their stage of career – Generation Z (born after 1996), Millennials (born 1981–1995), Generation X (born 1961–1980), Baby Boomers (born 1946–1960), returners to work and so on all have differing values, beliefs and lifestyle needs, which all have an impact. Values, beliefs and lifestyle needs all have an impact. Chapter 6 examines the different job, career and life aspirations of these different generations of people (see Table 6.4).

It is important to recognise that everyone is different and that inclusion of this diversity brings innovation and financial success to organisations, as discussed in Chapter 1. It is the bias – implicit or otherwise – that assumes all are the same that is so dangerous. Where the behaviours, values and characteristics of the minority are not recognised to be potentially different from those of the majority, and are also treated as such, this can compound feelings of exclusion. Furthermore, those who may look like the majority but not necessarily have the same characteristics may also suffer from marginalisation; men can therefore also feel like outsiders. In addition, we should be careful not to focus too much or solely on the behaviour of individuals. Organisational culture and policies can enforce inequality.

It is well known that what gets measured gets managed, and what gets managed usually gets done. To ensure technology is a welcoming and inclusive place where women – and indeed everyone – can develop their career, a number of equitable practices should be followed, including those in this chapter. Creating and implementing these alone will not, however, be sufficient. Effort must be put into challenging attitudes and beliefs, and into building inclusive values and an inclusive culture.

This chapter aims to provide practical examples of interventions that will support and progress women in technology and in technical careers. The by-product is that with provision of a more compelling workplace, some attraction issues are also addressed.

INCLUSION AND BELONGING

According to Catalyst, a global non-profit organisation working to build workplaces that work for women, 73% of women working in business roles in tech report feeling like an outsider, with just 17% of men feeling similarly (Beninger, 2014). Inclusion is linked with wellbeing and in turn with employee engagement and performance: a recipe for retention. In a more recent study examining belonging in undergraduate studies around the physical sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics, women reported a lower sense of belonging than men. The study also found that intention to persist with the subject was more strictly linked to belonging for women than it was for men (Lewis et al., 2017).

A 2019 study by BetterUp (2020) shows that a 56% increase in job performance can be linked to high belonging as well as a 75% reduction in sick days. The same study reported that employees with higher workplace belonging received double the pay rises and 18 times more promotions. Conversely, a Harvard Business Review report that used this study concludes that exclusion leads to ‘team (and self-) sabotage’ (Carr et al., 2019): when we feel like an outsider, we put in less effort.

Further research from Catalyst suggests that the more included employees feel, the more innovative and engaged they are, even going ‘above and beyond’ to help team members and their team objectives (Prime and Salib, 2014). In contrast, a lack of belonging can undermine performance (Smith et al., 2012).

What is inclusion? Catalyst defines inclusion as belongingness plus uniqueness (Prime and Salib, 2014): we all have a need to belong, and we also have a need to be unique. It defines belongingness as ‘the perception that you are part of a group, such as a work team, and that you are an essential part of the group’. Uniqueness is ‘the perception that you are distinct from others and that your distinctiveness is valued by others in the group’. This research states that ‘perceiving similarities with co-workers engendered a feeling of belongingness, while perceiving differences led to feelings of uniqueness’.

Thus, one aspect of retaining women is to ensure that they see likenesses with their colleagues but also that their differences are appreciated, if not celebrated. If the number of women in technology is increased, women are more likely to see and recognise their own qualities and behaviours in their colleagues. When managers and team members treat everyone as an individual, both men and women will benefit. Employers and colleagues – where relevant – will have greater understanding of their careers, ambitions, values, wants and needs.

Belonging and inclusion are affected by unconscious bias, micro-behaviours and stereotype threat. These concepts are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, so we will just briefly recap them here.

Unconscious biases are the social attitudes and stereotypes individuals attribute to certain groups of people that influence opinion, engagement and decision-making. Examples include affinity or in-group bias, confirmation bias and of course gender bias.

Micro-behaviours (micro-aggressions, micro-inequities and micro-messages) can be a result of unconscious biases. A 2019 report published by the University of Cambridge provides more details on some of these micro-aggressions (Armstrong and Ghaboos, 2019). For example, in a study of the open source community, code written by women was accepted 78.6% of the time – 4% more than code written by men – only when the programmer’s gender was kept secret (Terrell et al., 2017). What is key to note is that individual micro-aggressions are small in impact (straws) but plentiful (breaking the camel’s back).

With stereotype threat, stigmatised groups can underachieve and individuals may disengage or even adjust their professional aspirations. This is true of any group – and any protected characteristic group (see the preface for more on protected characteristics). Unpicking stereotypes has benefits for all individuals – they are seen as themselves, not labelled as part of one or more groups.

Given the research on the importance of belonging to retention of employees, it is easy to see how women who experience implicit bias and micro-aggressions and suffer from stereotype threat leave organisations in the technology industry, and sometimes the industry itself.

HOW TO REDUCE STEREOTYPE THREAT AND THE IMPACT OF UNCONSCIOUS BIAS

It takes a multipronged, proactive approach to reduce occurrences of stereotype threat and unconscious bias.

Education

It is vital that all employees in an organisation, from people early in their careers through to the top (and including the board), undertake unconscious bias training. And not just once. However, note that this education alone is not enough, and it can backfire in some cases (Noon, 2018): some badly delivered courses have actually shown an increase in bias afterwards because participants have seen the recognition that people possess biases as an excuse to validate their biases rather than question and address them. Delivered well, however, this training has a positive impact on the process of understanding and recognising biases (Emerson, 2017).

Unconscious bias training should address what it is, explain why it matters, outline what is meant by inclusion and provide examples of simple inclusive behaviours. Seek out education that also discusses privilege and allyship and that actively encourages bystander intervention to enable employees to respond when they witness bias and micro-aggressions taking place. Refer to Chapter 4 for more detail.

Implicit or unconscious bias training should include a number of techniques where individuals are taught to understand their own biases and their values. Education should be interactive, with exercises to promote discussion among individuals about types of bias and their impact. It should include simple behaviours that can help to disrupt the potential for bias.

There is a risk that attending one event on unconscious bias can result in some people thinking they are ‘cured’. It must be stressed that any such educational events are intended to raise awareness that these biases can have negative results and to help each individual spot and then counter bias as it arises in their day-to-day lives. This a process of continuous personal improvement.

As happens often with training, much can be forgotten on the return to the usual working pattern. For this reason, and to have a greater and meaningful impact, a programme of activity is necessary rather than one-off educational events.

There is a trend of providing implicit bias training for management alone, but many around us will influence our experiences in technology careers, just as we may influence others, and so training should be provided for all staff. However, management should receive more targeted training that supports their responsibilities, such as training in inclusive leadership (including good recruitment practice), performance assessment, allocation of developmental opportunities and inclusive meetings. These practices must all be supported and enforced through company policy and process, as per the section on equitable practices later in this chapter.

Counterstereotyping

A study of 17 implicit bias interventions revealed that counterstereotype training is a useful way to reduce implicit bias (Lai, 2014). Making changes in the environment that people encounter each day is a good support that reinforces training.

Include visuals that counter existing stereotypes: in reports and presentations, and on the walls. Include pictures, photos and symbols that counter negative stereotypes about gender – and about minorities. In organisational documentation, where it would be typical to default to the pronouns ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’, use ‘she’, ‘her’ and ‘her’ instead. While it is desirable that it will become habit to use ‘they’, ‘them’ and ‘their’ in order to be inclusive of all genders, there still exists the risk that people will visualise a man because of their dominance in tech. For now, by purposefully using feminine pronouns, we can force people to visualise a woman.

Going to a women’s college or having female professors are useful counterstereotypes as they reinforce that women are intelligent and dedicated. For those in the workplace, hearing the stories of powerful women and having female role models can assist.

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE CHANGE

Inclusion necessitates establishing and fostering a culture of long-term, sustainable change. This has multiple aspects, as described below.

Drive change from the highest level

Culture change begins at the top. Create a formal governance structure and appoint a diversity and inclusion leader who is empowered to make the necessary difference and is accountable for change. They should report directly to the chief executive of the organisation or to the chair. The governance structure must ensure accountability permeates throughout the organisation. In a large organisation, this should be the sole responsibility of an individual (perhaps a sponsor, as identified in Chapter 5). In a small or medium enterprise, it may be more appropriate to accommodate this leadership position within another role, but time must be made available for diversity and inclusion leadership; it must not be carried out over and above the day job.

While one person should be accountable for the progress of diversity and inclusion, it is everyone’s responsibility. Recruit diverse leaders who have a passion for inclusion.

Actively changing an organisation’s culture and charging a leader with increasing diversity and inclusion is the best place to start.

Adopt data-led governance

Capture data that represents the current state of diversity and inclusion in your organisation and establishes the facts rather than assumptions. This can then be used to identify risk areas and opportunities, set targets and track the progress of initiatives. Update and review diversity scorecards regularly, including at the board level.

Targets or key performance indicators – with status and progress available through dashboards, for example – should be built into the annual objectives and/or performance reviews of managers and executives. See more on this in Chapter 5.

Meaningful diversity metrics include:

• Representation: throughout the organisation, and especially within the board of directors, the leadership positions and hiring roles. Also, which gender predominantly works with the top customers?
• Retention: both voluntary and involuntary retention should be captured here.
• Recruitment: diversity of applicants and of new hires.
• Exits: to understand whether minorities are exiting disproportionately and to understand inclusion challenges.
• Appointments: both new hires and appointments from within the organisation.
• Promotions: to reveal how minorities progress.
• Pay and benefits: are some groups being disadvantaged? Where do the bonuses go?
• Opportunities and recognition: who gets the amazing assignments or prestigious projects? Who is enabled to create patents? Who works outside the organisation?
• Career progression: who receives the training opportunities? Who is mentored? Who is sponsored?
• Supplier and customer diversity: understand diversity in the ecosystem.
• Research in academia: are minorities being afforded equal opportunity to include research in their careers?

To understand your organisation’s inclusion status, it is important to periodically survey employees to assess their experiences – at both the team level and the wider organisation level. Areas of enquiry should include:

• being part of the team;
• being heard;
• being respected and valued;
• possessing power to make change;
• perceived parity of opportunity.

Such surveys can be performed as part of an engagement survey or as a separate activity. The results should be disaggregated by gender.

Exit interviews should be performed with those who voluntarily leave an organisation. These may help to uncover the occurrence of unacceptable behaviours, but it is important to ensure that the employee feels they are in a safe environment for such a discussion. When involuntary exits are necessary, data must be examined to ensure bias is not at work in selection of candidates and that there is no over-representation of any minority group.

Such reviewing, interviewing and reporting might require additional funding (for HR), which will then require the approval of the senior team.

Set expectations for diverse hiring

Hiring of diverse team members must become part of the normal procedure. The previous chapter provides recommendations on how to approach attraction.

Improve continually

Fostering a diverse and inclusive organisation is not a one-off activity but one of continuous improvement with a lifetime commitment. A target – for example, based on those suggested in the subsection above on data-led governance – may be met, but it will continue to require effort to ensure the numbers do not deteriorate again. Then, when a target is met and sustained, it is time to increase that target.

Encourage discussion and invite challenge

It is crucial to create a culture that enables all to have an open conversation and to challenge what is considered normal. Mistakes happen – it’s important to be forgiving where intentions are good and to be kind in correction.

For example, where an event run by employees is reliant upon other employees to put themselves forward to speak or to be on a panel, in our experience it is common for such offers to be made mostly by men and not women. Initial excuses for this might be that women have less confidence. (Conversely, when women do put themselves forward, they can be given the label ‘pushy’, which is a micro-aggression that serves to discourage women in general from volunteering. Toegel and Barsoux (2013) discuss double standards in their article ‘Women Leaders: The Gender Gap’.) It is also easy to assume that all men do not hold back. However, we have found that it is quite common for it to be the same men who repeatedly volunteer and put themselves forward. There may be men who lack the confidence yet do have an idea, lesson or other valuable contribution of importance. By changing the way in which contributions are invited, we can benefit from greater diversity of experience being shared at such events.

Set an example

To reinforce culture change and to perpetuate change across the industry, organisations should strive to be examples to others. Publish stories about diverse role models on your company website and other relevant channels. Share stories on social media. Report on the positive return on investment in inclusion, in terms of financial results, innovation and employee engagement. Ensure organisational events and conferences feature a diverse set of speakers and participants.

Work with other STEM companies and learn from professional bodies such as BCS to uncover ideas for other programmes, such as ‘Bring Your Daughter to Work’, and build your own.

ENGAGING MEN AND FOSTERING OPENNESS

Research from Boston Consulting Group shows that 96% of organisations that deliberately engage men in gender inclusion make progress towards cultural change, whereas only 30% that do not engage men will see change (Krentz et al., 2017). The more interaction men have with women, the less likely they are to exhibit prejudice (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). Behaviours that have historically been associated with leadership, such as assertiveness and dominance, are often perceived to be less acceptable in women, who end up being considered aggressive when they are simply assertive (Toegel and Barsoux, 2013). Forging mentoring relationships can raise awareness of this among men and open their minds.

Men often occupy the most powerful roles in technology, and their influence for change is critical to achieving gender parity. When they focus solely on pathologising and changing women, organisations miss the opportunity to address systemic issues, infer that women are the cause of their own lack of progress and imply that men need not be involved.

What we need is male allies. An article in Harvard Business Review defines these as ‘members of an advantaged group committed to building relationships with women, expressing as little sexism in their own behaviour as possible, understanding the social privilege conferred by their gender, and demonstrating active efforts to address gender inequities at work and in society’ (Johnson and Smith, 2018).

Technology is dominated by men who have formal authority and leadership, but unconscious bias means that often men will be granted power informally too. Male allies can use this influence to drive gender equality in the workplace.

Not all men will subscribe to these values – and Boston Consulting Group reports that often where diversity initiatives have been in place, men will overestimate the effectiveness of those programmes (Krentz et al., 2017). Therefore, male allies must be tenacious in their support of gender inclusion and set expectations for their male colleagues to act similarly.

Build empathy and trust

It is of the utmost importance that allies listen with sincerity and be empathetic. Be respectful, open-minded and focused to build trust and encourage openness. Listen to current challenges and ideas to make change.

Male allies should educate themselves on gender equality. It is not a woman’s role to instruct on the situation and challenges, although many will be happy to help. Men often think that if they have women in their teams that’s enough. They don’t necessarily examine the levels the women are at. If 50% of the entry-level (or equivalent) people are women, then this should follow through to more senior grades. However, BCS found that women remained very under-represented at IT director level in 2019, at just 13% (BCS, 2020).

Male allies should prepare to feel uncomfortable. Some of the stories of women in the professional technology environment will be unpleasant to hear and perhaps hard to believe – particularly when the behaviours at large are those of close colleagues or a man even recognises them in himself. This is an opportunity for change, so listen more before acting.

That said, it is not enough to listen or to make pledges: male allies need to take action. That may be to:

• mentor women;
• build a network of allies;
• build a diverse team;
• question leadership;
• challenge the status quo;
• challenge inappropriate behaviour and comments from colleagues;
• be mentored;
• and more.

The spirit in which action is taken is important: don’t speak for women, speak with women; don’t act for women, work with women. Be supportive. Male allies should ask how they can reinforce existing efforts.

Supporting gender parity initiatives

The business case for diversity, as evidenced in Chapter 1, should be a strong motivator for supporting initiatives that will take an organisation to gender parity. Yet, evidence shows that allies are more motivated to participate when they have feelings of acceptance by the disadvantaged group (Kunstman et al., 2013). Evidence also reports that men who are led to believe their involvement in gender parity initiatives is not legitimate will participate less in such initiatives, which is hardly surprising. Instead, when men believe they have a dignified and important role to play, gender parity efforts are more effective (Sherf et al., 2017).

Women-only networks are a useful tool for a variety of reasons that are covered in a later section in this chapter. They can provide safety and an opportunity for women to share challenges they are experiencing as a result of the behaviours of their male colleagues. However, bringing men into those networks can be a useful way to open up the conversation, expose male allies to the experiences of their female colleagues and enable them to be greater advocates. The solution may be for networks focused on gender diversity to run at least some events deliberately with men. However, men must be respectful of these spaces, approaching them without judgement and with a growth mindset. There may be a male impression that making a contribution to gender parity initiatives means providing solutions when women are sharing their stories. This can instead hinder. Listening fully and asking for more information helps. Men’s part must be holding the space for the conversation and acknowledging the action needed.

Of course, just as it should not be wholly down to women to fix the problem, no solution should be implemented for women without the full participation of women. This applies to any other (minority) group.

Avoiding the ‘pedestal effect’

It can be frustrating for women who have been fighting for equality for years to see men given special treatment for small acts of gender equality. One author has coined the phrase ‘the pedestal effect’ to describe the conditions in which men experience such recognition (Peretz, 2008). Spending time focusing on the men taking part in gender equality initiatives takes the focus away from the act of building parity; conversely, giving at least some focus to the women driving change provides role models and puts women front of mind.

Perhaps the solution is for men to bring humility and women to respond with kindness.

EQUITABLE PRACTICES

In the first iteration of this chapter, this section was called ‘Policies’. However, having policies is not enough: they absolutely must be put into practice, by everyone. Thus, the focus here is on the implementation of equitable practices that can support inclusive culture change. These may be documented as policies by HR, for example, but it is their execution – and measurement against them – that will drive change. The list that follows is not exhaustive.

Transparency

To help increase equality, the criteria and processes for decision-making about promotions, pay and rewards should be objective, evidence based and open to all employees. Other equitable practices in this section suggest how to remove bias and build inclusion into those decisions, and Chapter 5 provides additional detail on activities that can be monitored to improve understanding of the internal company landscape.

Appraisals, feedback, development opportunities and promotions

Research published by Harvard Business Review shows that women receive ambiguous feedback related to both praise and personal development (Correll and Simard, 2016). In contrast, men are more likely to be given more specific feedback on where they are performing well and how to get to the next level in their career.

Managers should ensure feedback linked to business goals and outcomes is given to all direct reports. Examples of areas for evaluation include:

• contribution to the organisation’s results and team success;
• fostering successful relationships within the organisation and with students, clients, suppliers and business partners (as appropriate);
• personal development, such as development of skills, positive behaviours and emotional intelligence.

To provide a more complete view, 360-degree feedback should also be adopted. This is feedback sought from an employee’s subordinates, peers, supervisors and so on. It could include feedback from clients or from teammates from a volunteering opportunity. Although not always fashionable, by seeking feedback from a variety of sources, a more comprehensive view of an employee’s performance and behaviours can be determined. As a minimum, this can be used to spot-check departments where there are thought to be problems.

Managers should have regular, open conversations with staff about feedback and career goals and aspirations. They should avoid making assumptions about values, aspirations and needs of employees, particularly those based upon home circumstances (mothers, but not fathers, tend to experience penalties when it comes to compensation and career development; Stone, 2007; Zalis, 2019). In working with each employee, managers should identify the types of activities that will assist in their development and advancement; when an appropriate opportunity arises – such as an assignment or sponsorship programme – managers should consider every member of their team.

Managers must be aware that, due to their socialisation, men may be more likely to request opportunities, promotions and pay rises, while women may be expect to be noticed and offered what they believe is appropriate without asking. Neither is the right or wrong way to behave, but if male managers expect everyone to behave like men then many women – and some men too – may be unjustly overlooked.

Managers should encourage women to negotiate for developmental opportunities and for more challenging roles. However, in the spirit of not changing women but changing the system, they should also ensure they give equal weight of consideration to the women who do actually ask for an opportunity as they do to the men. And they should consider their female team members who may not have vocalised their ambitions for growth prospects.

When it comes to promotions, adopting structured interviews can reduce unfair bias in decision-making. All candidates should be asked the same predetermined questions, in the same order. Chapter 6 discusses interviews in more detail.

Do note, however, that research published by Harvard Business Review in 2018 found that women asked for pay rises as often as men but were less successful in obtaining the raise (Artz et al., 2018). The next subsection examines this area.

Pay

There is a commonly held theory that women may be more likely to expect to be compensated fairly for their efforts and may not voice their expectation the way men would, as is documented in the book Women Don’t Ask (Babcock and Laschever, 2021). (However, as previously mentioned, a study by Harvard Business Review revealed evidence to the contrary.) Managers should therefore not be influenced by the requests made by some staff but not others when it comes to annual pay rises and other forms of remuneration.

Women are less likely to negotiate their pay. In 2019, Robert Walters revealed that 57% of women surveyed had never attempted to negotiate their salary while only 34% of men had never done so. By communicating salary ranges, employers can make the potential clearer to staff and may encourage women to negotiate, particularly when they are applying for an internal role. When women negotiate more, they may be more likely to have salaries that more closely match those of their male colleagues performing similar roles with similar experience (Government Equalities Office, 2018).

Decisions regarding remuneration must be evidence based and open. In particular, it is not acceptable for ‘she is not the breadwinner’ to be an excuse for why a woman is not given a pay rise or equitable pay.

Managing careers

It may have been the responsibilities of organisations to manage the careers of their employees in the past, but it usually now falls to each employee to own their career trajectory. One of the exciting things about technology is that there are so many career possibilities – in terms of roles, technology specialisms and industry application – but this can also create a problem in understanding what the possibilities might be at a personal level. Building a career framework – perhaps adopting BCS’s SFIAplus – is one way to provide structure and navigation.¹

As already mentioned in this chapter, women may be less likely to put themselves forward for career-enhancing opportunities. They are likely to be less visible. Although they may be more likely to seek out educational events in support of career progression, they may then be more likely not to actually attend them. There is speculation as to why – perhaps because those events in tech can also be male dominated. Managers must work with their female employees to ensure they are being put forward for the right opportunities and to add focus on those activities that must be completed to allow progression and promotion.

Presenteeism

An article in the British Journal of Management found that ‘presenteeism was found to be gendered: it is associated with a competitive masculine culture, it is seen by women as a form of “male resistance” to their presence’ (Simpson, 2002, abst.). Furthermore, the report indicated gender implications of ‘competitive presenteeism’, where comparison is made regarding those who stay longest in the office. Presenteeism can occur as a result of company culture, of employees who feel obliged to continue working to avoid their absence taking a toll on others, or of job insecurity. ‘Brogrammer’ culture (an amalgamation of ‘bro’ and ‘programmer’ to represent a stereotypically masculine culture), beer and table football in offices are examples of typically male cultural preferences that encourage employees to stay for long hours. Presenteeism may mean an employee is in the office but it does not mean they are productive.

In addition, presenteeism has a negative impact on menstruating women, who would perhaps benefit from more flexible working (Schoep et al., 2019). Staying at home to help with any suffering related to this specific fact of life can penalise affected women.

The expectations of different generations may drive some of the change necessary. The 2018 Modern Families Index revealed that when parents were asked about their employer and work–life balance, 34% of parents were resentful, with 37% of fathers overall feeling this way compared to 32% of mothers, while 46% of Millennial fathers felt resentful (Bright Horizons and Working Families, 2018). Although not all employees are parents, fixing this problem for women will likely address it for the whole population.

To combat presenteeism, leadership should set an example, put employee wellbeing first, review sick leave policies, ensure employees are taking their annual leave, review employee workload and encourage flexibility.

Awareness of responsibilities in the home

In the UK and much of the western world, caregiving (of both children and parents) has chiefly been the responsibility of women. This heritage permeates society and the workplace. Therefore, while more men are actively engaged in caring responsibilities, in a heterosexual relationship much of this activity still falls to women.

This book does not seek to suggest what is or is not the right balance for any family. It seeks only to point out that with such personal obligations and expectations, it may be more difficult for some women to find additional time to partake in activities that would support their careers. It can be more challenging to attend industry events, volunteer for extracurricular projects, and participate in other activities not directly within one’s job description but valuable to career, organisation and personal fulfilment. It is also often assumed that women will be less ambitious and be less committed to their careers because of their potential to become mothers (Crompton, 2006; Gatrell, 2008).

When women do not appear to be making the same contribution or are reluctant to commit to prestigious events, managers should take care that the reasons are understood, assumptions are not made and alternative ways to gain such experiences are explored.

Of course, cultural differences should also be taken into account. For example, there are those who work in the tech industry in the UK with different ethnicities, classes or age groups where childcare and housekeeping responsibilities may be even more likely to sit with women. One report revealed that although a far greater percentage of the early careers tech workforce in India is female, by comparison with the UK, this drops off greatly at mid-career due to challenges with provision of a working experience for those with caring responsibilities (Raghuram et al., 2018).

Internal recruitment

Chapter 6 provides more detail on equitable practices regarding internal appointments. To summarise briefly:

• When recruiting internally for a role, both the interview panel and the pool of candidates should be diverse. Some organisations dictate a 50:50 gender ratio for applicants before an appointment can be made.
• Job postings should be reviewed for subtle gender-coded language.
• Applications could be anonymised or have the gender of candidates removed to reduce bias during their review.
• Qualifications for a role can include life skills, not just experience gained during employment. For example, someone who has had a child may find they are skilled in planning and prioritisation.
• Furthermore, traditional qualifications may not be necessary – alternative routes such as apprenticeships provide diverse experiences.
• Whether previous experience in the technology industry is vital should be given considerable thought. Alternative experience could bring other valuable perspectives to a position.

Levelling maternity, paternity and other temporary breaks

We are conscious that parenthood takes many shapes and forms; here we explore how policies can be detrimental to all parties.

In October 2019 the UK Government Equalities Office reported that among 3,500 new parents, only 27.8% of mothers were still in full-time employment or self-employed in comparison with 90% of fathers (Harkness et al., 2019). There are many reasons for this, one of which will be that it is the informed choice of both parents, and choice is key. However, the reality is that parental leave policies often discriminate and leave a woman without options.

In 2015 in the UK, Shared Parental Leave (SPL) and Statutory Shared Parental Pay (ShPP) were brought in to enable mothers to share their maternity leave with the child’s father. However, self-employed contractors and freelancers were not included. Parents can take up to a maximum of 50 weeks of SPL and a maximum of 37 weeks of ShPP. Companies can adapt paternity pay to keep it in line with maternity pay, but most do not.

Policies concerning adoption tend to be less mature. In the UK, Statutory Adoption Leave is 52 weeks but may only be taken by one person, even if a couple is adopting (Gov.uk, 2021a). Where relevant, a father may take paternity leave instead. We would encourage organisations to consider providing some adoption leave for both fathers and mothers.

If fathers are not hands-on from the start of parenthood, it is more likely that caring responsibilities will be placed upon the mother. Then, the Cycle of Socialisation (as depicted in Chapter 4) means that the notion that the woman will take on these responsibilities is handed down to the next generation.

Simply, paternity leave needs to be equal to maternity leave and should be shared in the year in which it can be taken. Furthermore, the rate of pay for employed fathers should be the same as that for employed mothers. This will battle stigma and change attitudes.

Keeping in touch

At the time of writing, legislation in the UK exists such that UK employees can work up to 10 keeping in touch (KIT) days during their maternity or adoption leave. They are optional – both the employee and the employer must agree to them. Employees can also work up to 20 days during their SPL. These are called ‘shared parental leave in touch’ (or SPLIT) days. These days are in addition to the 10 KIT days (Gov.uk, 2021b). Regardless of this legislation, employers should build this type of practice into their culture.

For example, a mentoring relationship could be made available to any employee taking a substantial break for personal reasons. This can be a useful way to ensure the employee does not miss out on team and organisational news, changes and so on. It may help them to retain visibility, particularly where the mentor or coach provides a voice for them back into the organisation.

Caring responsibilities

Many assume that childcare is the reason for a woman’s lack of progression (or other disadvantage compared to men) – and often it is – but we must not forget that of all women in England and Wales who reached 45 years of age (deemed to be the end of childbearing years) in 2019, 18% were childless (Office for National Statistics, 2020). There are several countries across Europe where the birth rate has dipped so low that they are close to or are not replacing their population. Furthermore, many women in the workplace will have adult children who do not need a parent to provide any supervision or protection.

When collecting and monitoring data as suggested elsewhere in this chapter, an organisation must take these possibilities into account as they will give insight into bias occurring despite women not having childcare responsibilities. These factors may prove a salient reminder to managers who want to believe that it is childcare that is responsible for all women’s lack of progression.

Nonetheless, caring responsibilities – as discussed earlier in this chapter – often fall to the mother. As reported by the BBC in June 2020, ‘numerous studies of working parents’ lives during Covid-19 have shown that… a disproportionate share of the burden is still falling on women’ (Savage, 2020). Caring responsibilities for elderly and infirm relatives are also more likely to fall to women. The ‘sandwich generation’ is so called because they may have caring responsibilities for both elders and children, and 68% of the caregivers in this generation are women (AgeUK, 2019). For that reason, the next subsection is particularly important.

Flexible working

A flexible work arrangement enables an employee to choose when and where they work. As we navigate from ‘work–life balance’ to ‘work–life integration’, these arrangements can help women to manage their responsibilities for childcare with their obligations for work, and should be available to everyone.

Flexible working comes in a variety of forms, such as the following, and can also be a combination of them:

• When:
  • reduced hours (e.g. shorter working week);
  • holiday breaks (e.g. taking time out when children are out of school);
  • compressed hours (e.g. five days’ worth of work over a period of four days);
  • alternative hours (e.g. working in the evening with colleagues based in another country);
  • job sharing, usually with reduced and/or compressed hours.
• Where:
  • virtual working – at any location of the employee’s choice;
  • working on the client’s site;
  • working at an office location.

Unfortunately, there is a stigma associated with flexible working when it means a change to how hours are worked. Too often many think a reduction in hours can mean a reduction in commitment to the job. Furthermore, it may be assumed that the flexible worker possesses a polar opposite inflexibility regarding travel for work – see the previous subsection on development opportunities for advice to prevent the influence of such assumptions on the careers of mothers.

Contrary to popular opinion, a Cranfield University and Working Families (2008) study of flexible workers revealed that 90% of managers believed that quantity and quality of work were equal or improved in flexible working. Carnegie Trust discusses a number of studies that link flexible working and productivity positively (Stewart, 2020). And the 2018 Modern Families Index revealed that flexible workers have a higher level of job satisfaction and are also more likely to be engaged (Bright Horizons and Working Families, 2018) – both important factors with regard to the retention of diversity.

Flexible working can benefit everyone, not just mothers or those fathers who take an equal or greater share of parenting responsibilities. Those who have caring obligations for elderly parents (again, often the women) will benefit, but so will those who wish to volunteer to bring further purpose to their lives. Flexible working can reduce absenteeism (Giardini and Kabst, 2008) for a variety of reasons – including caring responsibilities but also for those with disability and long-term health conditions – and support mental health (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2020). Various British organisations have trialled and switched to a four-day week for a number of reasons including health (Booth and Holmes, 2019).

Flexible working opens access to a broader, more diverse collection of talent. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (2014) revealed that 92% of Generation Y place flexibility as a top priority when selecting workplaces. Some of the most famous technology companies in the world, such as Twitter and Microsoft, have said that, post-COVID-19, their workforce can continue to work from home (Hogan, 2020; Paul, 2020).

Bear in mind that flexible working is not just about start and end times; there may not be start and end times! There may be core times that are agreed for execution of a role and for interaction with other employees or other stakeholders such as students, customers or clients. An employee with young children may find they can easily work with teams in other countries by working in the evening.

Job sharing, where two people take on the tasks of one, is worth consideration. This could either be through sharing the same tasks, with analysis made of how to hand over from one to the other, or through division of the tasks into smaller amounts of work to be done. While it can require additional resourcing to make job sharing successful (e.g. twice as much training), there can be many benefits such as greater business continuity and increased innovation (‘two heads are better than one’). Capability Jane (2014) partnered with seven global institutions to investigate the use of job sharing in senior roles and found that 71% of over 100 job share partners were promoted while in the partnership.

As mentioned, flexible working may also concern the location of one’s work. Of course, there may be some roles for which location has at least some inflexibility – a hardware engineer may have to attend a physical location in order to replace a component – but the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that many roles can successfully be performed remotely. Technology can provide suitable and satisfactory ways to collaborate virtually. Even tasks such as pair programming, traditionally performed in person, are possible virtually. When we are in a situation where many people are working together in person, at one location, we must continue to expend effort including those who are contributing virtually, and especially ensuring their visibility to management and for opportunities. Furthermore, responsibility for ensuring those working virtually have visibility in their organisation should not just fall to those individuals but also to the teams and management around them.

To address the stigma associated with flexible working, organisations should promote flexible-working role models and should facilitate the sharing of lessons learned by managers of those in such working arrangements. In recognition that task managers may not always be line managers, organisations could develop a guide to facilitate a discussion between an employee and a team leader, project manager or other task leader that would allow for an open discussion, without judgement or prejudice, about an employee’s flexibility and availability.

Menopause

Menopause is a fact of life. It typically affects women between the ages of 45 and 55. When it hits, some women may be child-free and some may have grown-up children, while others may still be juggling the school run. There are dozens of symptoms, including headaches and migraines, exhaustion, brain fog, anxiety, mood swings and depression (Earle, 2018). While not everyone experiences every symptom, they can be debilitating.

The role of the workplace is to accept that for a period of time, older women – and some younger women – may require support. Offer an open door to discuss work commitments. Be prepared to rethink how the team works. For example, if a woman is suffering from exhaustion, 8am breakfast meetings may not be appropriate.

This absolutely must not be interpreted as an excuse not to have women in the tech workplace. Losing women at this stage in their career results in the expensive squandering of years of experience (in terms of technical knowledge, organisational awareness and industry understanding) coupled with the costs of replacing the person (in terms of recruitment, retraining and organisational assimilation) and also the hiatus between one employee leaving and another becoming fully ready to take on the role. The person lost may be integral to organisational networks, could drive activity beyond their main job and will likely have organisational insight not documented anywhere. Losing women at this stage in their career will result in fewer women in director and leadership roles, where diversity is no less key to organisational success.

ROLE MODELS

It is often said that ‘you cannot be what you cannot see’ when the importance of role models is raised. While there will always be the odd person who is the first to do something unique, normally we will be inspired to pursue a role or career when we see others like us go before us. It is easier for a woman to imagine herself in a particular role when she sees a woman in it already. Research has shown that in academia, female students who are assigned a female professor are more likely to choose a major in STEM than those who are assigned a male professor (Bettinger and Long, 2005). Additionally, there is a high correlation between retention of junior-level female employees and the number of female supervisors.

Further research reports that ‘subtle exposures to highly successful female leaders inspired women’s behavior and self-evaluations in stressful leadership tasks’ (Latu et al., 2013, p. 444). Studies have also shown that when women are exposed to female leaders, they are less likely to hold unconscious, stereotypical beliefs about other women (Dasgupta and Asgari, 2004). They are less likely to be impacted by the stereotype threat mentioned earlier in this chapter and in Chapter 4.

Note that it is also important for men to see that women can fill a variety of roles in technology, particularly those less occupied by women: ‘technical’ roles and leadership roles. The more they see women in such roles, the less they will question whether women do belong in technology, and the more mentoring and support they might provide to women. Furthermore, parents play a hugely influential role in the decisions of children and young people in areas such as subjects to study in school and in further or higher education. Again, by having women visible in these roles, parents are more likely to encourage their female children to consider technology and leadership as viable career paths.

There are a number of important factors to consider when selecting and showcasing role models:

• Variety: this relates to the roles performed, the behaviours and style of the role model, and seniority. Not all women are the same and so they will be inspired by different women. If the seniority gap between a role model and a woman is too large, it can be difficult for that woman to imagine herself in the role model’s position.
• Routes: it is important to share stories of the career journeys of role models, increasing transparency about how to navigate an organisation. It can reveal that there can be many ways to achieve a leadership role, not just one direct journey. And it can challenge perceptions of what it takes to get to, for example, a leadership role where it is incorrectly believed that certain behaviours associated with male employees are necessary in everyone.
• Visibility: it is hard to be a role model without being visible. Organisations should ensure they have women featured in internal events such as management town halls and roundtables. This diversity cannot be achieved with just one token women, nor always the same woman. Furthermore, women should not be allocated only to the roles of ‘panel chair’ or ‘host’ but should bring content and subject matter expertise. There should also be gender balance externally, whether at physical or virtual events or in marketing materials and social media.

There can be a reluctance among women to be made visible, which can be attributed to a number of reasons, such as not wishing to be ‘the woman’ who is ‘rolled out’ and fear of exposure to the type of toxic social media comment (‘trolling’) that can result when women are visible and accessible. By ensuring more women are visible, there will be less fear of isolation. By setting expectations, educating on biases, micro-aggressions and inclusion, and encouraging men to speak up when bad behaviours are exhibited (see earlier in this chapter), the fear of trolling will be reduced.

SPONSORSHIP

Harvard Business Review has reported that having a personal sponsor who supports a career can help to bring equity for women (Ibarra et al., 2020). Chapter 6 discusses the role of sponsorship in attracting women into technology. This section discusses its importance in retaining and growing women in the industry.

Sponsors are people in positions of authority who purposefully advocate and influence to help others advance. Mentors share knowledge and advice; they may not be leaders but have experience from which a mentee can learn. While both roles are valuable to careers, sponsorship may be more influential than mentoring in helping women to succeed. Sponsors can be mentors, but not all mentors may be sponsors. (See later in this chapter for more discussion of mentorship.)

A sponsor has multiple responsibilities: to facilitate and inspire career vision, to share their network of connections and make connections for the person they sponsor, and to put the person forward for development opportunities. Sponsorship activities will often take place without the protégé’s knowledge, building visibility for them and speaking on their behalf.

Sponsorship becomes more important for the more senior levels in a company, where there are fewer roles and the need for advocacy, not just competence, traditionally increases.

Sponsorship does not just benefit the protégé. Their success can reflect well upon the sponsor, increasing their credibility. The sponsor can broaden their reach and benefit from better connectedness to other levels and perspectives in their organisation.

To increase the likelihood of success, a sponsorship relationship should be open and honest, with candid feedback and commitment to success. The sponsor must leverage their power and the protégé must follow through.

MENTORSHIP

In mentorship, a more experienced or skilled person – the mentor – helps to guide or advise a less experienced person – the mentee. The mentor may be older or younger, or more senior or more junior. A mentorship is not concerned with time served but with expertise or skills that can be shared.

Some approach mentoring in an informal manner, but often mentoring will take place with a set of time-bound goals or outcomes for the mentee. These can then be refreshed with the same or a new mentor.

Mentoring can take place for career purposes and also for diversity and inclusion impact, and in fact the two may be inextricably linked. By ensuring mentoring takes place across differences, it is possible to challenge stereotyped notions of capabilities, aspirations and ambition. This can also increase the diversity of employees under consideration for promotion and development opportunities through increasing the visibility of women in an organisation, and by building networks between employees of different genders.

Research has shown that mentorship from men can increase compensation and career progress for women (Ramaswami et al., 2010), particularly those working in industries dominated by men, such as technology. Women can also be impactful and supporting mentors of women, although senior women in particular may be inundated with requests for mentoring from more junior women.

Mentoring has been found to be the most impactful activity (Valerio and Sawyer, 2016) for increasing diversity and inclusion at work, in comparison with diversity training and other initiatives (Dobbin and Kalev, 2016). (This does not negate the need for these activities; it simply emphasises that mentoring is critical.)

In mentoring women, men must be careful not to make assumptions based on their unconscious biases or incorrect stereotypes. For example, much is made about lack of confidence in women, and one TED Talk demonstrated that men were mentoring their men and women mentees differently: for women they emphasised personal development in areas such as assertiveness, confidence and personal branding, but for men more focus was placed on business, strategic skills and financial acumen (Colantuono, 2013). While the former skills are important for differentiation, the latter are what take a person to influential and executive positions.

Mentorship styles

Different styles of mentorship may be appropriate depending upon the needs of the mentee. Informal mentoring can include networking activities, a buddy scheme and group mentoring. Formal mentoring usually requires greater engagement from both parties in the mentoring relationship; it is focused on the mentee with one-on-one meetings, definition of objectives and a deadline for their achievement. Networking activities may also take place in a more formal agreement – in this case, deliberately selected and attended by both the mentor and the mentee.

Building a mentoring programme

To ensure mentorship takes place systemically within an organisation, it can help to build a formal mentorship programme. With an attitude of continuous improvement, it can be renewed and adapted as needed over time.

The following approach may be helpful:

1. Define the goal of the programme.

2. Build the process for mentoring, the timeline and the logistical needs.

3. Establish sponsors for the programme.

4. Select the participants.

5. Provide mentorship training.

6. Match mentors and mentees.

7. Run an iteration of the programme – kick off, communicate with participants throughout and celebrate the end of the iteration.

8. Review and assess the programme.

9. Refine the goal and the process, and begin again at step 4.

Note that participants in one iteration of the programme can be invited to continue the mentoring relationships they established.

Mentoring in support of diversity: Reverse mentoring

Reverse mentoring is the act of earlier career employees mentoring executive team members, sharing skills, knowledge and experience. Thought to have first been an approach taken by GE CEO Jack Welsh in the late 1990s (Jordan and Sorell, 2019), it can have many purposes including keeping technical skills current, supporting culture change, and increasing understanding of and empathy with diverse groups.

Organisations can follow the same steps as for more traditional mentoring programmes to run a successful reverse mentoring scheme.

NETWORKS

According to the report Women in the Workplace 2020, ‘women get less access to senior leaders than men do. Yet employees who interact regularly with senior leaders are more likely to ask for and receive promotions, stay at their companies, and aspire to be leaders’ (Coury et al., 2020). Furthermore, a joint study by LinkedIn and the Adler Group revealed that 85% of jobs are filled through networking (Adler, 2016).

Women’s networks level the playing field by creating an environment that can lead to women having similar opportunities to those experienced by men, where women at the top are able and willing to help other women up and where men at the top are engaged with these networks.

Networking has a number of positive impacts: it can invoke a feeling of belonging, provide role models, help people to find sponsors and mentors, and identify career opportunities. All of these are extremely important to women, who are in such a minority in the technology industry.

Most people will be familiar with the concept of the glass ceiling. It is often assumed that those women who encounter it are later in their careers and have proved themselves over and over. Perhaps they’ve stepped away for family purposes. Instead, an article in Forbes suggests that hitting the glass ceiling can happen within just five years of entering the workforce (King, 2018).

Then there are glass walls, where it is perceived as acceptable for women to be in some functions – such as HR, marketing, operations and project management – but not necessarily in others – such as systems architecture or technical leadership. Finally, there is also a ‘glass cliff’ where women are given projects or jobs where it is nigh-on impossible for them to succeed (Ryan and Haslam, 2005).

Networking provides women with opportunities to break all of these glass barriers.

Organisations must advocate, promote and support (with finance) gender diversity networks. For some companies this will mean establishing and running one within the organisation; for others it will mean promoting and even partnering with external gender diversity networks such as BCSWomen and the many other women in technology-focused networks that have been established.

Belonging

Bringing together women from across an organisation can give a sense of community and connectedness, particularly for those women who regularly find themselves the only woman in their team or project. Such networks can provide a safe, supportive space for sharing common experiences and challenging situations, and learning new skills. For those who feel they cannot bring their true self to the workplace, perhaps because of colleagues who are not understanding, networks focused on women can be a place to relax and be more authentic. This must include space for the individual to be honoured and supported, especially for women who may not fit the stereotypes expected of them even by other women.

Finding role models

Networks are a place to hear stories of women around and above us. While often they will feature stories of navigating a career in technology, successes and the challenges faced as a result of gender, these are also an opportunity for women to hear other women in the role of subject matter expert, of leader, of visionary. Men are often welcome at women’s networking events and thus they too experience that it can be normal for a woman to be the highly qualified specialist.

Identifying a mentor

Women’s groups can be a great way to find other women who would be willing to mentor. Informal networking time at such events helps to build rapport, one of the first steps in building a mentoring relationship. Of course, many senior women do already spend time mentoring junior colleagues, but the glass ceiling can mean their opportunities to be mentees in turn can be limited. Accessing networks outside an organisation can widen the opportunity to find a more experienced female mentor for those already in senior positions.

Confidence, competence and courage

Much onus is placed on confidence – or the lack of it – in women. This could be, and often is, the subject of a whole book on its own. Women can often be supressed or punished for speaking up at work and learn that it’s safer to be quiet. As Suzanne Doyle-Morris puts it in The Con Job, ‘a perceived lack of confidence can turn into a convenient excuse for leaders to not invest in some of their best employees’ (Doyle-Morris, 2020, p. 19). Culture change that supports colleagues to call out unacceptable behaviours to ensure women can flourish at work is addressed earlier in this chapter.

Where a woman is accepted and supported, she is more likely to find the courage to take on challenges and opportunities she may otherwise have turned down. Furthermore, networks can be an ideal place to share a skill or an experience in a safe, encouraging and understanding environment. A network can help a woman realise the value she brings and enable her to capitalise upon it.

Growing a career

It has often been said that luck is found where preparation and opportunity meet. If people don’t know what a woman has done, has delivered or has led, they cannot offer her something suitable. Networking is another way for women to share their successes, to influence so that relevant referrals can be made, enabling them to grow within an organisation.

Networking with men

While networks for women are fundamental, women must be encouraged to network with men too. Otherwise, they will be networking with a much smaller set of role models, mentors and influencers. They risk losing out on opportunity. For this, allies – either male or female – can be vital. Turning up at networking events alone can be an anxious and stressful experience for a woman, particularly when she expects to be the only woman.

SUMMARY

Treating everyone the same is not the same as treating everyone equally. Creating an inclusive environment is often not a small undertaking. This does not mean it can or should be avoided: the technology industry cannot afford not to be inclusive.

Begin now if you have not already, and take it one step at a time. As suggested in this chapter, start from the top and appoint a leader for inclusion. Define and execute equitable practices, educate everyone, build allyship, support mentoring and build networking groups (or encourage attendance at external groups if your organisation is too small to warrant one). Chapter 5 outlines what a project should look like and how to get started.

The technology industry is exciting and ground-breaking, with potential for a truly positive impact on the world. Women are vital to that and want to be a part of this change. Many have already made an entry into tech, but too many are leaving. By creating an inclusive environment, organisations – large, small and academic – and the individuals of which they are composed will benefit from the skills, expertise and passion of those women who will stay and can progress.

REFERENCES

Adler, L. (2016). New survey reveals 85% of all jobs are filled via networking. LinkedIn. Available from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-survey-reveals-
85-all-jobs-filled-via-networking-lou-adler.

AgeUK. (2019). Breaking point: The social care burden on women. Available from https://www.ageuk.org.uk/our-impact/campaigning/
care-in-crisis/breaking-point-report.

Armstrong, J., & Ghaboos, J. (2019). Women collaborating with men: Everyday workplace inclusion. Murray Edwards College, University of Cambridge. Available from https://www.murrayedwards.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/
files/Everyday%20Workplace%20Inclusion_FINAL.pdf.

Artz, B., Goodall, A., & Oswald, A. J. (2018). Research: Women ask for raises as often as men, but are less likely to get them. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2018/06/research-women-ask-for-raises-as-
often-as-men-but-are-less-likely-to-get-them.

Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2021). Women don’t ask. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

BCS. (2020). BCS diversity report 2020: Part 2. Available from https://www.bcs.org/media/5766/diversity-report-
2020-part2.pdf.

Beninger, A. (2014). High potentials in tech-intensive industries: The gender divide in business roles. Catalyst. Available from https://www.catalyst.org/research/high-potentials-
in-tech-intensive-industries-the-gender-divide-
in-business-roles.

BetterUp. (2020). The value of belonging at work: New frontiers for inclusion. Available from https://www.betterup.com/en-us/resources/reports/
the-value-of-belonging-at-work-the-business-case-for-
investing-in-workplace-inclusion/thank-you.

Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95(2), 152–157.

Booth, R., & Holmes, M. (2019). String of British firms switch over to four-day working week. The Guardian. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/12/string-of-
british-firms-switch-over-to-four-day-working-week.

Bright Horizons and Working Families. (2018). 2018 Modern Families Index full report. Available from https://workingfamilies.org.uk/publications/mfindex2018.

Capability Jane. (2014). Job sharing at senior level: Making it work. Available from https://thejobshareproject.com/registration.html.

Carr, E. W., Reece, A., Kellerman, G. R., & Robichaux, A. (2019). The value of belonging at work. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2019/12/the-value-of-belonging-at-work.

Catalyst. (2014). The gender divide in tech-intensive industries. Available from https://www.catalyst.org/research/infographic-the-
gender-divide-in-tech-intensive-industries.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2020). Health and wellbeing at work. Available from https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/culture/well-being/health-well-being-work.

Colantuono, S. (2013). The career advice you probably didn’t get. TEDx Beacon Street. Available from https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_colantuono_the_career_advice
_you_probably_didn_t_get/transcript.

Correll, S. J., & Simard, C. (2016). Research: Vague feedback is holding women back. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2016/04/research-vague-feedback-
is-holding-women-back.

Coury, S., Huang, J., Kumar, A., Prince, S., Krivkovich, A., & Yee, L. (2020). Women in the workplace 2020. McKinsey & Company and Lean In. Available from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-
and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace.

Cranfield University and Working Families. (2008). Flexible working and performance. Available from https://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/
2014/09/Flexible-Working-Performance-2008.pdf.

Crompton, R. (2006). Employment and the family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–658.

Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail.

Doyle-Morris, S. (2020). The con job: Getting ahead for competence in a world obsessed with confidence. n.p.: Wit & Wisdom Press.

Earle, L. (2018). The good menopause guide. London: Orion Spring.

Emerson, J. (2017). Don’t give up on unconscious bias training – make it better. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2017/04/dont-give-up-on-unconscious-
bias-training-make-it-better.

Gatrell, C. (2008). Embodying women’s work. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Giardini, A., & Kabst, R. (2008). Effects of work-family human resource practices: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(11), 2079–2094.

Glass, J. L., Sassler, S., Levitte, Y., & Michelmore, K. M. (2013). What’s so special about STEM? A comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social Forces, 92(2), 723–756.

Government Equalities Office. (2018). Actions to close the gender gap. Gov.uk. Available from https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/actions-to-close-the-gap.

Gov.uk. (2021a). Adoption pay and leave. Available from https://www.gov.uk/adoption-pay-leave.

Gov.uk. (2021b). Employee rights when on leave. Available from https://www.gov.uk/employee-rights-when-on-leave.

Harkness, S., Borkowska, M., & Pelikh, A. (2019). Employment pathways and occupational change after childbirth. Government Equalities Office. Available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
840062/Bristol_Final_Report_1610.pdf.

Hewlett, S. (2014). What’s holding women back in science and technology industries. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2014/03/whats-holding-women-back-in-
science-and-technology-industries.

Hogan, K. (2020). Embracing a flexible workplace. Official Microsoft Blog. Available from https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/10/09/
embracing-a-flexible-workplace.

Hupkau, C., & Petrongolo, B. (2020). Work, care and gender during the COVID-19 crisis. Centre for Economic Performance. Available from https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cepcovid-19-002.pdf.

Ibarra, H., Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2020). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2010/09/why-men-still-get-
more-promotions-than-women.

Johnson, W. B., & Smith, D. G. (2018). How men can become better allies to women. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2018/10/how-men-can-become-better
-allies-to-women.

Jordan, J., & Sorell, M. (2019). Why reverse mentoring works and how to do it right. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2019/10/why-reverse-
mentoring-works-and-how-to-do-it-right.

Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 504–519.

King, M. (2018). Women hit a glass ceiling early in their careers: Here’s how to break it. Forbes. Available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelleking/2018/12/05/women-hit-a-glass-
ceiling-early-in-their-careers-heres-how-to-break-it.

Krentz, M., Wierzba, O., Abouzahr, K., Garcia-Alonso, J., & Brooks Taplett, F. (2017). Five ways men can improve gender diversity at work. Boston Consulting Group. Available from https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2017/people-organization-
behavior-culture-five-ways-men-improve-gender-
diversity-work.

Kunstman, J. W., Plant, E.A., Zielaskowski, K., & LaCosse, J. (2013). Feeling in with the outgroup: Outgroup acceptance and the internalization of the motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 443–457.

Lai, C. (2014). Reducing implicit racial references: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143(4), 1765–1785.

Latu, I. M., Schmid Mast, M., Lammers, J., & Bombari, D. (2013). Successful female leaders empower women’s behavior in leadership tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 444–448.

Lewis, K. L., Stout, J. G., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Miyake, A., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2017). Fitting in to move forward: Using a belonging framework to understand gender disparities in persistence in the physical sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pSTEM). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(4), 420–436.

Madgavkar, A., White, O., Kirshnan, M., Mahajan, D., & Azcue, X. (2020). COVID-19 and gender equality: Countering the regressive effects. McKinsey & Company. Available from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/covid-19-
and-gender-equality-countering-the-regressive-effects.

Noon, M. (2018). Pointless diversity training: Unconscious bias, new racism and agency. Work, Employment and Society, 32(1), 198–209.

Office for National Statistics. (2020). Childbearing for women born in different years, England and Wales: 2019. Available from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/
birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/
bulletins/childbearingforwomenbornin
differentyearsenglandandwales/2019.

Paul, P. (2020). Twitter announces employees will be allowed to work from home ‘forever’. The Guardian. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/12/
twitter-coronavirus-covid19-work-from-home.

Peretz, T. H. (2008). The pedestal effect: Problems and potentiality for feminist men. UCLA Center for the Study of Women. Available from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1hr6f62t.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751.

Power, K. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the care burden of women and families. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1), 67–73.

Prime, J., & Salib, E. R. (2014). Inclusive leadership: The view from six countries. Catalyst. Available from https://www.catalyst.org/research/inclusive-leadership-
the-view-from-six-countries.

Raghuram, P., Herman, C., Ruiz, B. E., & Sondhi, G. (2018). Women and IT scorecard: India 2018. Open University UK. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328603083_
Women_and_IT_Scorecard_-_India_2018.

Ramaswami, A., Dreher, G. F., Bretz, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2010). Gender, mentoring, and career success: The importance of organizational context. Personnel Psychology, 63, 385–405.

Robert Walters. (2019). Driving diversity in the workplace. Available from https://www.robertwalters.co.uk/content/dam/robert-
walters/country/united-kingdom/files/whitepapers/
Driving-Diversity-and-Inclusion-in-the-Workplace-Gender.pdf.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81–90.

Savage, M. (2020). How COVID-19 is changing women’s lives. BBC. Available from https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200630-how-
covid-19-is-changing-womens-lives.

Schoep, M. E., Adang, E. M. M., Maas, J. W. M., De Bie, B., Aarts, J. W. M., & Nieboer, T. E. (2019). Productivity loss due to menstruation-related symptoms: A nationwide cross-sectional survey among 32748 women. BMJ Open, 9(6), e026186.

Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Webe, K. C. (2017). It is not my place! Psychological standing and men’s voice and participation in gender-parity initiatives. Organization Science, 28(2), 193–210.

Simpson, R. (2002). Presenteeism, power and organizational change: Long hours as a career barrier and the impact on the working lives of women managers. British Journal of Management, 9(S1), 37–50.

Smith, J. L., Hawthorne, L., Lewis, K. L., & Hodges, S. D. (2012). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 131–143. doi: 10.1177/0146167212468332.

Stewart, E. (2020). What we know – and what we don’t – about flexible working and productivity. In G. Irvine (Ed.), Can good work solve the productivity puzzle? (pp. 86–90). Carnegie UK Trust and RSA. Available from https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/can-good-work-
solve-the-productivity-puzzle.

Stone, P. (2007). Opting out? Why women really quit careers and head home. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Terrell, J., Kofink, A., Middleton, J., Rainear, C., Murphy-Hill, E., Parnin, C., & Stallings, J. (2017). Gender differences and bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Computer Science, 3, e111.

Toegel, G., & Barsoux, J. L (2013). Women leaders: The gender gap. Institute for Management Development. Available from https://www.imd.org/contentassets/0b678dd550f347e09f88a
70e76041b86/tc014-13-women-leaders.pdf.

UK Commission for Employment and Skills. (2014). The future of work: Jobs and skills in 2030. Gov.uk. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobs-
and-skills-in-2030.

Valerio, A. M., & Sawyer, K. B. (2016). The men who mentor women. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-men-who-mentor-women.

Van der Gaag, N., Heilman, B., Gupta, T., Nembhard, C., & Barker, G. (2019). State of the world’s fathers: Unlocking the power of men’s care. Washington, DC: Promundo-US.

World Economic Forum. (2018). The global gender gap report 2018. Available from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-
gender-gap-report-2018.

Zalis, S. (2019). The motherhood penalty: Why we’re losing our best talent to caregiving. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleyzalis/2019/02/22/
the-motherhood-penalty-why-were-losing-our-best-
talent-to-caregiving.

NOTES

1 See https://www.bcs.org/membership/sfiaplus-it-skills-framework.