Milonic JavaScript Menu is only visible when JavaScript is enabled
DMI home

Leadership and Gender Bias

I am pleased to post the third in a series of four blogs I am writing on leadership for SHRM's We Know Next: This blog focuses on leadership and gender bias--from below:

This blog should not be construed as legal advice, pertaining to specific factual situations or establishing an attorney-client relationship


Mad About Mad Men

As originally published by SHRM's "We Know Next," found here.

Mad About Mad Men

By: Jonathan A. Segal

Sexism is more than illegal. It is immoral and bad business.

There is more than a little bit of sexism in the roles portrayed in Mad Men.  So why are so many of us crazy about the show, even though we deplore the sexism that is part of it?

Of course, it is a TV show and not real life. And, the characters are not only psychologically interesting but also physically attractive.

And, there is great writing and acting.   The sex doesn’t hurt, either. I hear it sells!

But I think there may be something else going on.  But perhaps not consciously.

Today, fortunately, the stereotypic constraints for women (and men) are breaking down.   And, that is all good. But it can also be confusing for  supervisors and subordinates alike as they try to navigate life at the office.

Obviously, sexism in not entirely gone. Some men still visit strip clubs while away on business.  But only a knuckle dragger who has no place in the modern workplace would suggest that women should go along to get along.

But when roles are not clear, and the bias that exists is unconscious or covert, it creates ambiguity. With ambiguity comes anxiety.

While there is psychological complexity in Mad Men, there is not a lot of ambiguity in terms of gender roles.  And, perhaps one of the reasons we are fascinated by it is because we are seeking a workplace that’s a little less ambiguous, even though it is deeply flawed in its clarity.

Don Draper is the likeable but the licentious alpha male who pursues and gets what he wants from his workplace, economically as well as sexually. In contrast, Red is well...Red.  In addition to how she presents herself in the workplace, she makes sure that the other women "know their place" in the workplace.

All accept their gender-defined roles, except for Peggy. She will not accept the gender role assigned to her.   She is ambitious and we will see soon how far her ambition takes her.

But Peggy struggles with her own ambition.  And those in the 1960 Boys’ Club around her struggle with her ambition, too.

The ambivalence in and about Peggy still exists in our workplaces today.  Yes, it is less conspicuous and often unconscious, but we deceive ourselves if we believe it is not there.

Assertive women still face unfair “Catch-22s” every day.  Be directly assertive and you may be branded with Scarlett B.  Be more indirect and you may be seen as weak and/or underhanded.

And, many men are confused by the sea change.  How should we behave?

I recently gave a talk for executives about gender bias.  After the talk, I took the elevator down to the lobby with some of the participants.  When the door opened, no one knew what to do.  I had a “brilliant” suggestion: those closest to the opening leave first.

So we look with distaste at the sexism and all that which goes with it.  But, perhaps, we also yearn, to some degree, for greater clarity. Guess what: we can’t have it.

Stereotypes define roles. We now need to define our roles for ourselves without society unfairly assigning them to us.

The freedom is of course liberating and for the best. But it is not without some anxiety.

But, take a break from anxiety, and enjoy Mad Men this weekend.  I know I will.

The author, a partner with Duane Morris in Philadelphia and managing principal of the Duane Morris Institute, focuses on counseling, training and strategic planning to minimize litigation and unionization.




In Defense Of Sheryl Sandberg

I am pleased to post my recent blog for SHRM's WeKnowNext, In Defense of Sandberg.  While Sandberg needs no defenders, I will:

Boys Without A Club

My most recent blog, Boys Without A Club:

Published by SHRM's WeKnowNext.

This blog does not constitute legal advice, create an attorney-client relationship or apply to specific factual situations


Boys' Club Next Door

I am please to post an article I wrote for Fortune on gender discrimination in general and Boys' Clubs in particular:


Boys Just Want To Have Fun

It is with gratitute to SHRM's HRMagazine for publishing my most recent article on Boys Clubs: 


 Boys Just Want to Have Fun 

Vol. 58 No. 3 
Shut down boys’ clubs.  

3/1/2013  By Jonathan Segal 

The term “boys’ club” refers to the unofficial and often impenetrable group of men—usually white men—in an organization or department who have effective control and power. Being part of or having access to the club often is critical to making the right connections to advance within the organization.

Because these groups often form covertly, and sometimes as a result of unconscious rather than conscious bias, the membership does not always correspond to the organizational chart. Moreover, top executives often deny the existence of an exclusionary club. I have never seen a “formal” boys’ club, yet I would be foolish to deny that it exists at some organizations.

When it comes to determining the scope of a boys’ club, official positions may be relevant but not determinative. I have seen organizations with gender equity at the top, but the real power is held by men. Conversely, I have also seen organizational charts where most power positions are held by those with Y chromosomes, but I didn’t think there was any gender bias in general or a boys’ club in particular.

Why are these clubs present in some companies? And how do we eradicate them?

I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I do have some thoughts to help HR professionals move toward equal employment opportunity (EEO).

Bias in Your Backyard

Sex discrimination, including gender stereotyping, is illegal. More than that, it is bad business.

Ensuring gender equality is a business imperative in terms of attracting, retaining and advancing talent that goes beyond the legal imperative. We exclude women or any other group at our peril.

You may be thinking, “Of course. This is hardly news.”

Most executives outside of HR would agree. They understand the business drivers mandating diversity and inclusion.

Still, most do not see the bias in their backyards. Don’t assume that everyone understands the business costs of bias.

Why Boys’ Clubs Exist

There are many reasons an organization or a silo within may have a boys’ club.

The first is what the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission calls “like-me” bias: the human tendency to be more comfortable with those who are like you.

“I don’t discriminate,” says the executive. But he socializes with, plays golf with and feels more comfortable among those who look like him.

Does this risk exist in an organization where women are in control? You bet. Executives in these organizations face the same risk of like-me bias to the detriment of those with Y chromosomes.

Boys’ clubs do not justify girls’ clubs, legally or morally. Power clubs that exclude men are also bad business.

Like-me bias is usually the product of unconscious affinity toward similarity. Sometimes, however, conscious considerations contribute to a boys’ club.

These considerations may be well-intentioned. We live in a painfully litigious world. One misstatement may later be used as evidence of bias, even if the statement was made out of awkwardness as opposed to malice.

In the “gotcha” world of employment litigation, leaders appropriately want to avoid saying the wrong thing. They sometimes inappropriately avoid people they fear may perceive their words in a negative light. But you can’t avoid bias claims by avoiding those who are different from you. That’s called bias.

There is more room for human error in a diverse group. While that may explain, in part, why some clubs exist, it does not justify their existence.

In addition, members of boys’ clubs often justify their activities as being primarily social. Work is hard and seems to be getting harder. In the 1970s, Spiral Starecase sang, “I love you more today than yesterday but not as much as tomorrow.” The theme song for today’s business world could be “I expect more from you today than yesterday but not as much as tomorrow.” So, when people work hard, they may want to play hard, too.

In mixed-gender groups, the sexist “joke” is more likely to be costly, and the appropriateness of going to strip clubs is more likely to be challenged.

So we move from the ’70s to the ’80s, when Cyndi Lauper sang “Girls Just Want to Have Fun.” Today, the boys who just want to have fun fear that the price tag may be too high if women are included in certain activities, so some don’t include them.

Dismantle Boys’ Clubs

Just so there is no confusion: Even in male groups, the sexist jokes are not funny and the strip clubs are offensive. There are many men—I am one of them—who say so, but fewer men than women will bring claims based on them.

There is no magic bullet to dismantling these clubs, but here are 10 recommendations for your consideration:

  • Educate executives about the potential for the existence of a boys’ club and the business costs of such a group. You cannot stress enough the costs of excluding women from the inner circle. It is not only about the talent women bring but about the fact that men who operate in diverse groups tend to be better employees.
  • Make sure your job descriptions for leadership positions do not inadvertently exclude women. Don’t include a minimum number of years of experience that is not necessary for the position and that women historically have been denied the opportunity to achieve. For example, for an operations position, if the number of years of experience required is unnecessarily high, it may perpetuate bias engaged in by prior employers. Do you really need someone with 15 years of experience? Is 10 enough? At least ask the question.
  • Open the promotion process so that when senior positions become available, credentials, not connections, matter. Leadership roles too often are willed to the next in line, and that person often looks like his predecessor in terms of demographics. So, as a general rule, post the opening.
  • Give a “plus” to differences in experiences, perspectives and leadership styles as part of decision-making. When we focus on these aspects of diversity, we increase EEO diversity. However, do not give gender a plus. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers probably cannot consider gender a plus unless there is a remedial purpose. For private-sector employers, that means either an admission of prior discrimination or proof of a “manifest imbalance” in traditionally segregated positions. For public-sector employers, only an admission of previous discrimination will do.
  • Consider affinity groups that focus on gender issues so that women can learn from one another and develop career strategies. But be careful: As a practical matter, an affinity group should be a launching pad, not a landing pad. As a legal matter, if you support an affinity group for women, do you have to do the same for men? Here comes the annoying lawyerism: “It depends.” If the affinity group is supported by the employer so that it would be considered a term or condition of employment, employers cannot discriminate based on gender. The same would be true of race. Develop EEO-neutral criteria for affinity groups, and allow any groups to argue that they meet them. For example, any group that wants employer support should have to present the business case for the need and a plan for how the group will expand the business. In female-dominated professions, a male affinity group may meet the criteria.
  • Develop a formal mentoring program. In the absence of a formal program, like-me mentoring often benefits people who are like those at the top. Be careful that any formal mentoring program does not do the same. Many formal programs gender-match. If people at the top are predominantly male, doesn’t that mean that men will benefit more? Moreover, isn’t it misguided to suggest that men cannot mentor women or vice versa? And doesn’t gender-matching, when it comes to mentoring, deprive men of power the opportunity to learn of barriers that they did not know existed? When there is cross-gender mentoring, mentors often learn as much as they impart.
  • Pay attention to micro-inequities that collectively may result in macro-exclusions. Leaders need to think about with whom they have lunch, go for drinks, attend sporting events and connect through social networking. We all know it is in the context of these informal interactions that relationships are strengthened and information is shared. These informal interactions may be the visible and discoverable manifestations of a boys’ club.
  • Diversify organizational social events so that many interests are covered. Mix things up. Of course, not all women like to shop for shoes, and some men do. But I suspect more women do than men. (I once was on a panel on gender bias in the legal profession, and the only issue on which there was a good-natured gender divide was shoes. I still think two pairs is enough: one formal and one informal.) In any event, can you imagine if your only company-sponsored social events involved shoe shopping? Are male-dominated sporting events different? By offering diverse activities, you will maximize inclusion and have some fun, too. How do you know what might be of interest? Ask.
  • Focus on alcohol. Why? Many boys’ clubs have as charter members Jack Daniels, Jim Beam and Old Grand-Dad. Drinking buddies and membership in boys’ clubs often overlap. That does not mean women don’t drink socially or even excessively. But often the boys’ clubhouse is a neighborhood bar.
  • Don’t deceive yourself into believing that only cave dwellers engage in sexual harassment. While we have made progress as a society, sexual harassment is alive and well. Sexist jokes, verbal innuendo, visits to strip clubs—sometimes these missteps result in a claim. Just as bad, they effectively push women away.

Some women will stay with your organization but opt out of the social events where inappropriate behaviors occur. Marginalized, these employees don’t realize their full potential. Worse, they may take their talent and outside relationships to a more inclusive employer. Inappropriate conduct may not be severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, but it may create a boys’ club when women choose not to go along to get along, a choice no one should ever have to make.

The author, a partner with Duane Morris in Philadelphia and managing principal of the Duane Morris Institute, focuses on counseling, training and strategic planning to minimize litigation and unionization.


Frailty, Thy Name Is Woman

As published by SHRM's We Know Next: found here.

From Shakespeare's Hamlet 1602:

Heaven and earth,
Must I remember? Why, she would hang on him
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on, and yet, within a month—
Let me not think on't—Frailty, thy name is woman!—

Hamlet is angry at his mother for marrying shortly after his father's death.  He sees her as weak.  He generalizes the weakness he sees in his mother to women generally.

No progressive manager would say a sexist comment like that today. Actually, they might, just when they think they are being progressive!

Every responsible employer has a harassment prevention program.  So, managers are more sensitive with what they do and say.  But sometimes their heightened sensitivity takes a dangerous turn.

A business meeting takes place among executives.  There are four men and one woman.  During the meeting, the group realizes they are not going to meet Wall Street's expectations. One of the men snaps "oh f---"  For my friends in Texas, I don't mean "federal."

After he said it, the f-bomber looks to the woman at the table and says “I’m sorry.” Another man at the table digs the hole deeper by adding, “He did not mean to offend you.” (How did he know that?)

By focusing on the one woman at the table, both male executives not only drew attention to her but also suggested that she was a fragile creature who needed to be rescued and protected from their vulgar mouths.

In this not-so-hypothetical example, the woman was not offended by the expletive when it was used in response to bad economic news.  But she certainly did not like the attention being placed on her.  Having finished reading Jane Austen, she was not going to fall off her Victorian chair because of a curse word.  Do you think she never said it, let alone heard it?

In this case, if anything were to be said, it should have been, “Let's keep it professional” without focusing on the woman.

But what if the comment were blatantly sexist?  Shouldn't someone apologize to her now?

No!  Again, that only makes her the focus.  In other words, it makes it worse.  And, it suggests that, were she not there, the sexist comment would have been okay.

The focus should be on the troglodyte. And, one of the men should respond appropriately by saying immediately, "I am offended."  After all, you don't need to be a woman to be offended by sexism any more than you need to be a person of color to be offended by racism.

You need to do more than the right need to do it the right way.  Pauline does not need to be rescued from her perils.  She just needs an equal opportunity to succeed--or fail--on a level playing fiel





The Devil Doesn't Only Wear Prada

As orginally published by SHRM's "We Know Next," found here.

We all know that powerful women face Catch-22s.  When Donald Trump exercises control, he is in control. When Martha Stewart exercises control, she is controlling.  Same behaviors; different labels.
A lot has been written about these Catch-22s.  Less has been written on how women with power can handle them.
Here are three of the many Catch-22s women with power face and my suggestions for how to navigate them.

1. Ice Queen

Women who maintain emotional control are sometimes described as Ice Queens.  Of course, those who demonstrate emotion may be equally criticized.
I once had a male client scream at me about how an emotional woman working for him was making him nuts.  I was glad he was not emotional.
It's okay to show passion, compassion and emotion.  Just make sure that it's in the framework of control.
Indeed, consider getting ahead of the curve. Whether you are male or female, educate your team on the importance of emotional intelligence. 
And, don't react to fears of being perceived as too emotional by being non-emotional.  That goes too far, unless you want your subordinates to wear winter coats in August.
Ice Kings and Queens are not likely to inspire passionate followers.  But subordinates tend to be tougher on the queens than the kings.

2. Tough

Women with power who are simply as tough as men are sometimes described as tough in either a disparaging way (“bitch”) or with surprise (“wow, is she tough”).  What were you expecting from the COO:  a shoulder to cry on?
Of course, if a woman is more collaborative, she may hear that she is not tough enough. Why can’t she make a decision on her own? Why does she need so much buy in?
Whether male or female, you need to be tough to lead.  And, regardless of gender, being strong is not inconsistent with being collaborative.
But, for women, this can be a more difficult balance in the eyes of the beholder.  Same behaviors may produce different responses.
People continue to tune in to hear The Donald say “You’re fired.”  People tuned out when The Martha said the same thing (in a less direct way). 
Be strong.  And that doesn’t mean out-toughing Cro Magnon man. 
Be collaborative. But be clear that you will make the decision (when it is your decision) and be decisive when you do.

3. Anger

When men are angry, they're often seen as powerful.  Anger is a very powerful emotion if coming from a Y chromosome.  When women are angry, they are sometimes viewed as one step away from Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.
There are times when you should be angry.  But recognize the double standard and be careful that the anger be focused on what was done and less on how you feel about it.  Contrary to therapeutic advice, keep the focus on actions and not on feelings.
Related, when men complain, they push.  When women complain, they sometimes are labeled “whiners.”  Don't get me wrong:  incessant whiners, regardless of gender, are irritating.
But women often are judged more harshly when they complain so be careful when and how.
Compare:  “I am so mad I was excluded from the meeting” with “Glad to be here.  I’m sure you simply forgot to include me.”
Of course, not all women face all (or even some) of these or other stereotypes.  And, where they exist, they tend to be subtle pastels rather than the fluorescent lines I have painted to make the point.
The devil does not only wear Prada.  How easy it would be if it were that simple.
Where these stereotypes exist, they are often the product of unconscious bias and sometimes hard to detect.  Women with power need to deal with them consciously.  But, they do not need to go it alone.
There are plenty of progressive (and secure) men who do not hold these stereotypes.  To suggest that a progressive (white) male is an oxymoron is also an unfair and untrue stereotype.





Jonathan Segal

Business Ally. Help clients achieve business goals and manage legal risks. Areas of focus include: gender equality; wage and hour compliance; social media; leadership training; union avoidance; performance management; and agreements

Search Jonathan Segal's blog

« April 2014
© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.
The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.