Critical Listening Guide

Just Because You Always Hear It, Doesn't Mean It's True

Not all approaches to increasing diversity are research-based or effective

This guide is intended to help you identify common misunderstandings that surface when people talk about how to increase the participation of women (and other underrepresented groups) in technology.

Use these tips to help you spot statements that might be "red flags" or a sign that the discussion is headed in a direction that is not research-based

Types of Problem Statements:

Fix the woman/person

Essentialism

Framing as "women’s (or other groups’) issues"

All Statements: Lack Intersectional Lens

Note that in addition to the problems identified above, all of the statements in this grid lack an attention to intersectionality – that is, they fail to recognize the ways in which women and men vary in terms of race, class, sexual orientation and other social identities.

Remember that it is always important to ask "which women" or "which men" are involved?

 

“Women need
to learn to be
more confident”

 

 

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “What if it (‘being confident’ or whatever advice is being offered) backfires?”

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • Research shows that “fixing people” is never enough to change the system. Many people might benefit from learning to be/appear more confident or to speak more “professionally.” But, at best, this will only help those individuals; it won’t change patterns of underrepresentation.
  • Fix the person approaches also ignore important reasons why underrepresented groups may not “lean in” or “speak up.” For example, just because women “seem” less confident, doesn’t mean they actually are; how they behave could be a result of stereotype threat or the environment they are currently in.
  • Suggesting women be more confident (or assertive) fails to recognize that there are advantages to behaving diplomatically or less assertively. The workplace could benefit from more people learning to behave diplomatically.

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

 

Why is this problematic?

This statement relies on a “Fix the Woman/Person” approach rather than a “Fix the Environment” approach.

What does the research say?

While some of this may be good advice or professional development that everyone can benefit from, years of research demonstrates that it will do little, if anything, to change systemic underrepresentation.

These statements ignore reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or may not negotiate. They fail to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats these groups differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color, in some contexts.

Research:

 

“Women bring communication or people skills”

 

 

The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

 

“Hey ladies, we need to stop holding ourselves back”

 

 

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “What if it (‘being confident’ or whatever advice is being offered) backfires?”

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • Research shows that “fixing people” is never enough to change the system. Many people might benefit from learning to be/appear more confident or to speak more “professionally.” But, at best, this will only help those individuals; it won’t change patterns of underrepresentation.
  • Fix the person approaches also ignore important reasons why underrepresented groups may not “lean in” or “speak up.” For example, just because women “seem” less confident, doesn’t mean they actually are; how they behave could be a result of stereotype threat or the environment they are currently in.
  • Suggesting women be more confident (or assertive) fails to recognize that there are advantages to behaving diplomatically or less assertively. The workplace could benefit from more people learning to behave diplomatically.

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

 

Why is this problematic?

This statement relies on a “Fix the Woman/Person” approach rather than a “Fix the Environment” approach.

What does the research say?

While some of this may be good advice or professional development that everyone can benefit from, years of research demonstrates that it will do little, if anything, to change systemic underrepresentation.

These statements ignore reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or may not negotiate. They fail to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats these groups differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color, in some contexts.

Research:

    

“Consider infusing hip-hop into your curriculum to better engage students
of color”

 

The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

  

“Learn to take up space, and toot your own horn”

 

 

 

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “What if it (‘being confident’ or whatever advice is being offered) backfires?”

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • Research shows that “fixing people” is never enough to change the system. Many people might benefit from learning to be/appear more confident or to speak more “professionally.” But, at best, this will only help those individuals; it won’t change patterns of underrepresentation.
  • Fix the person approaches also ignore important reasons why underrepresented groups may not “lean in” or “speak up.” For example, just because women “seem” less confident, doesn’t mean they actually are; how they behave could be a result of stereotype threat or the environment they are currently in.
  • Suggesting women be more confident (or assertive) fails to recognize that there are advantages to behaving diplomatically or less assertively. The workplace could benefit from more people learning to behave diplomatically.

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

 

Why is this problematic?

This statement relies on a “Fix the Woman/Person” approach rather than a “Fix the Environment” approach.

What does the research say?

While some of this may be good advice or professional development that everyone can benefit from, years of research demonstrates that it will do little, if anything, to change systemic underrepresentation.

These statements ignore reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or may not negotiate. They fail to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats these groups differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color, in some contexts.

Research:

  

“So tell me what are the top 5 things we need to do to recruit and retain more Black women? More LGBTQ folks?”

 

The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

  

“Women need flexibility in their jobs”

 

 

 

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues

Add This:

  • Diversity & inclusion concerns are human issues and they are business issues. We need all hands on deck, and we need majority group members to take ownership for making change rather than leaving this responsibility only to minority group members.
  • Flexible work policies, in particular, should be framed as beneficial and for use by everyone, including men and individuals without children.
  • Formal policies are not enough. Any conversation about programs that support work/life balance must include strategies to encourage employees to actually use them. For example, employers must ensure that employees aren’t stigmatized or penalized for using programs; in addition, executives and supervisors should set positive examples by making use of benefits themselves.

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues”

Why is this problematic?

This statement frames the issue or problem as a “women’s issue” or as an issue only relevant for particular underrepresented groups — as something that is primarily important for these groups or special “help” that these groups “need.”

What does the research say?

Change efforts should not be delegated to minority group members; majority group members also need to take ownership for these efforts. All groups stand to benefit from changing or expanding existing norms; therefore, we need all hands on deck.

While it’s true that family responsibilities still tend to fall more heavily on women, and women are more likely to leave because of competing responsibilities, times are changing. Men are participating more in childcare and express desire to be involved parents, but often feel even less able than women to utilize work policies that enable greater family involvement.

“Free choice” is not always as “free” as it seems. Women may “choose” between family and career because they have few alternatives. When partners share family responsibilities equally, women frequently make different “choices.”

Also, the existing “choices” available vary a great deal when considering race, class, sexual orientation and ability.

Research:

   

“Men are such linear thinkers”

 

 



The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

   

“Women and men have different leadership styles”

 

 

 

The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

  

“We need to help our interns from certain areas learn to speak more professionally; otherwise, it’s really going to hold them back”

 

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “What if it (‘being confident’ or whatever advice is being offered) backfires?”

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • Research shows that “fixing people” is never enough to change the system. Many people might benefit from learning to be/appear more confident or to speak more “professionally.” But, at best, this will only help those individuals; it won’t change patterns of underrepresentation.
  • Fix the person approaches also ignore important reasons why underrepresented groups may not “lean in” or “speak up.” For example, just because women “seem” less confident, doesn’t mean they actually are; how they behave could be a result of stereotype threat or the environment they are currently in.
  • Suggesting women be more confident (or assertive) fails to recognize that there are advantages to behaving diplomatically or less assertively. The workplace could benefit from more people learning to behave diplomatically.

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

 

Why is this problematic?

This statement relies on a “Fix the Woman/Person” approach rather than a “Fix the Environment” approach.

What does the research say?

While some of this may be good advice or professional development that everyone can benefit from, years of research demonstrates that it will do little, if anything, to change systemic underrepresentation.

These statements ignore reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or may not negotiate. They fail to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats these groups differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color, in some contexts.

Research:

  

“A senior leader announces that the Black and Latinx affinity groups should take the lead in developing an inclusion strategy”

 

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues

Add This:

  • Diversity & inclusion concerns are human issues and they are business issues. We need all hands on deck, and we need majority group members to take ownership for making change rather than leaving this responsibility only to minority group members.
  • Flexible work policies, in particular, should be framed as beneficial and for use by everyone, including men and individuals without children.
  • Formal policies are not enough. Any conversation about programs that support work/life balance must include strategies to encourage employees to actually use them. For example, employers must ensure that employees aren’t stigmatized or penalized for using programs; in addition, executives and supervisors should set positive examples by making use of benefits themselves.

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues”

Why is this problematic?

This statement frames the issue or problem as a “women’s issue” or as an issue only relevant for particular underrepresented groups — as something that is primarily important for these groups or special “help” that these groups “need.”

What does the research say?

Change efforts should not be delegated to minority group members; majority group members also need to take ownership for these efforts. All groups stand to benefit from changing or expanding existing norms; therefore, we need all hands on deck.

While it’s true that family responsibilities still tend to fall more heavily on women, and women are more likely to leave because of competing responsibilities, times are changing. Men are participating more in childcare and express desire to be involved parents, but often feel even less able than women to utilize work policies that enable greater family involvement.

“Free choice” is not always as “free” as it seems. Women may “choose” between family and career because they have few alternatives. When partners share family responsibilities equally, women frequently make different “choices.”

Also, the existing “choices” available vary a great deal when considering race, class, sexual orientation and ability.

Research:

  

“We really need to help our Asian students learn to speak up more”

 



The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “What if it (‘being confident’ or whatever advice is being offered) backfires?”

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • Research shows that “fixing people” is never enough to change the system. Many people might benefit from learning to be/appear more confident or to speak more “professionally.” But, at best, this will only help those individuals; it won’t change patterns of underrepresentation.
  • Fix the person approaches also ignore important reasons why underrepresented groups may not “lean in” or “speak up.” For example, just because women “seem” less confident, doesn’t mean they actually are; how they behave could be a result of stereotype threat or the environment they are currently in.
  • Suggesting women be more confident (or assertive) fails to recognize that there are advantages to behaving diplomatically or less assertively. The workplace could benefit from more people learning to behave diplomatically.

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

 

Why is this problematic?

This statement relies on a “Fix the Woman/Person” approach rather than a “Fix the Environment” approach.

What does the research say?

While some of this may be good advice or professional development that everyone can benefit from, years of research demonstrates that it will do little, if anything, to change systemic underrepresentation.

These statements ignore reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or may not negotiate. They fail to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats these groups differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color, in some contexts.

Research:

  

“Women manage like ____; men manage like____.”

 

 

 

The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

  

“Women won’t apply for the job unless they have all the qualifications; but men will apply if they only have a few”



The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

  

“Women are such great collaborators”

 

 



The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

  

“Women want a family-friendly workplace”

 




The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues

Add This:

  • Diversity & inclusion concerns are human issues and they are business issues. We need all hands on deck, and we need majority group members to take ownership for making change rather than leaving this responsibility only to minority group members.
  • Flexible work policies, in particular, should be framed as beneficial and for use by everyone, including men and individuals without children.
  • Formal policies are not enough. Any conversation about programs that support work/life balance must include strategies to encourage employees to actually use them. For example, employers must ensure that employees aren’t stigmatized or penalized for using programs; in addition, executives and supervisors should set positive examples by making use of benefits themselves.

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues”

Why is this problematic?

This statement frames the issue or problem as a “women’s issue” or as an issue only relevant for particular underrepresented groups — as something that is primarily important for these groups or special “help” that these groups “need.”

What does the research say?

Change efforts should not be delegated to minority group members; majority group members also need to take ownership for these efforts. All groups stand to benefit from changing or expanding existing norms; therefore, we need all hands on deck.

While it’s true that family responsibilities still tend to fall more heavily on women, and women are more likely to leave because of competing responsibilities, times are changing. Men are participating more in childcare and express desire to be involved parents, but often feel even less able than women to utilize work policies that enable greater family involvement.

“Free choice” is not always as “free” as it seems. Women may “choose” between family and career because they have few alternatives. When partners share family responsibilities equally, women frequently make different “choices.”

Also, the existing “choices” available vary a great deal when considering race, class, sexual orientation and ability.

Research:

  

“Don’t be afraid to negotiate; just waltz in there, and ask for what you deserve”

 

 

 

 

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “What if it (‘being confident’ or whatever advice is being offered) backfires?”

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • Research shows that “fixing people” is never enough to change the system. Many people might benefit from learning to be/appear more confident or to speak more “professionally.” But, at best, this will only help those individuals; it won’t change patterns of underrepresentation.
  • Fix the person approaches also ignore important reasons why underrepresented groups may not “lean in” or “speak up.” For example, just because women “seem” less confident, doesn’t mean they actually are; how they behave could be a result of stereotype threat or the environment they are currently in.
  • Suggesting women be more confident (or assertive) fails to recognize that there are advantages to behaving diplomatically or less assertively. The workplace could benefit from more people learning to behave diplomatically.

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

 

Why is this problematic?

This statement relies on a “Fix the Woman/Person” approach rather than a “Fix the Environment” approach.

What does the research say?

While some of this may be good advice or professional development that everyone can benefit from, years of research demonstrates that it will do little, if anything, to change systemic underrepresentation.

These statements ignore reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or may not negotiate. They fail to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats these groups differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color, in some contexts.

Research:

  

“Take charge of your career”

 

 

 

 

 

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “What if it (‘being confident’ or whatever advice is being offered) backfires?”

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • Research shows that “fixing people” is never enough to change the system. Many people might benefit from learning to be/appear more confident or to speak more “professionally.” But, at best, this will only help those individuals; it won’t change patterns of underrepresentation.
  • Fix the person approaches also ignore important reasons why underrepresented groups may not “lean in” or “speak up.” For example, just because women “seem” less confident, doesn’t mean they actually are; how they behave could be a result of stereotype threat or the environment they are currently in.
  • Suggesting women be more confident (or assertive) fails to recognize that there are advantages to behaving diplomatically or less assertively. The workplace could benefit from more people learning to behave diplomatically.

The Problem: Fix the Woman/Person Approaches to Diversity

 

Why is this problematic?

This statement relies on a “Fix the Woman/Person” approach rather than a “Fix the Environment” approach.

What does the research say?

While some of this may be good advice or professional development that everyone can benefit from, years of research demonstrates that it will do little, if anything, to change systemic underrepresentation.

These statements ignore reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or may not negotiate. They fail to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats these groups differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color, in some contexts.

Research:

  

“We really need to hire more ______ (e.g., Black, Latinx, Native American) employees so that we can better understand that market”



The Problem: Essentialism

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? Which Black women? Which LBTQ folks? Which persons with disabilities? Which__________?”
  • “How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Essentialism

Add This:

You can help make these kinds of problematic statements more accurate by adding this research-based information.

  • It’s important to qualify these statements by noting that they:
    1. don’t apply to all members of any one group,
    2. differences we see aren’t innate but rather socially influenced tendencies, and
    3. when they do apply, they are often “context” dependent and not always true even of that person.
  • For example, sometimes some women, largely due to how they’ve been raised, do express different leadership styles. But in public conversation, these differences often are overestimated.

The Problem: Essentialism

Why is this problematic?

This statement reflects what researchers call “essentialism”: statements that overgeneralize or exaggerate similarities among women, among men, among members of a particular racial/ethnic group, or among members of any one group. These statements also tend to act as though these similarities or specific characteristics are innate. They also tend to especially portray women and men as essentially and fundamentally different.

What does the research say?

While some research shows partial support for some (but not all) of these statements, they tend to get simplified and exaggerated in public discourse. As a result, these statements can do damage because they perpetuate stereotypes and inscribe difference as innate. They ignore:

  • the vast range of differences within groups
  • the huge role that socialization plays in who we are (i.e., how we are raised, societal norms)
  • the fact that women and men are more similar than different; in fact, research shows that differences among men or among women are generally greater than differences between men and women.
  • reasons why underrepresented groups may appear less confident or not negotiate. There is a failure to recognize that sometimes these actually may be smart strategies in a system that treats them differently. For example, being assertive and taking charge can backfire for women, especially women of color.

Research:

 

“Women usually want/choose to spend more time with their families”

 

 




The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues

Ask This:

  • “Tell me more. I’m curious to hear more about why you think that.”
  • “Isn’t it more complicated than that though?”
  • “All women/men? Which women/men? How do you account for variations among women, men, or other groups?”

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues

Add This:

  • Diversity & inclusion concerns are human issues and they are business issues. We need all hands on deck, and we need majority group members to take ownership for making change rather than leaving this responsibility only to minority group members.
  • Flexible work policies, in particular, should be framed as beneficial and for use by everyone, including men and individuals without children.
  • Formal policies are not enough. Any conversation about programs that support work/life balance must include strategies to encourage employees to actually use them. For example, employers must ensure that employees aren’t stigmatized or penalized for using programs; in addition, executives and supervisors should set positive examples by making use of benefits themselves.

The Problem: Framing Diversity Issues as “Women’s (or Other Groups’) Issues”

Why is this problematic?

This statement frames the issue or problem as a “women’s issue” or as an issue only relevant for particular underrepresented groups — as something that is primarily important for these groups or special “help” that these groups “need.”

What does the research say?

Change efforts should not be delegated to minority group members; majority group members also need to take ownership for these efforts. All groups stand to benefit from changing or expanding existing norms; therefore, we need all hands on deck.

While it’s true that family responsibilities still tend to fall more heavily on women, and women are more likely to leave because of competing responsibilities, times are changing. Men are participating more in childcare and express desire to be involved parents, but often feel even less able than women to utilize work policies that enable greater family involvement.

“Free choice” is not always as “free” as it seems. Women may “choose” between family and career because they have few alternatives. When partners share family responsibilities equally, women frequently make different “choices.”

Also, the existing “choices” available vary a great deal when considering race, class, sexual orientation and ability.

Research:

Ideas for Using This Tool

For Yourself:

  • Skim before or after conferences, workshops, or other talks to heighten your ability to recognize and address these concerns.
  • Refer to it when preparing your own talks, panels or workshops.
  • Refer to it when reading information on diversity or whenever you hear something that doesn’t sound quite right.

With Others:

  • When using this tool, don’t make it about blame. Talk about how we’ve probably all made these statements from time to time. These are complex topics so it’s helpful to think about how to talk about these issues in more accurate and effective ways.
  • Show this to your team or to other colleagues to start a conversation.
  • Debrief with others after conferences or workshops, using this tool for reference.
  • Disseminate as a helpful resource for speakers who are preparing talks.
 
EMAIL YOUR FEEDBACK
Scroll to Top