EXPERT Q&A

Women and minority leaders who reach senior executive positions often face more intense scrutiny, and research has recommended organizations provide critical stakeholders with information about a leader to reduce negative biases.

Aparna Joshi, professor of management and organizations at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, calls for organizational approaches that ask not what women can do differently—but what organizations and stakeholders can do differently to enable progress.

Joshi discusses her research, which revisits previous assumptions about biased reactions to women in leadership positions and how organizations can leverage the findings to reduce friction.

The study addresses increased polarization in the workplace and its impact on women leaders. What are some signs of this phenomenon?

The boundary between organizations and society at large is highly porous. We see this when we hear some politicians describing women leaders as “DEI hires.” Or when social media influencers, some referred to as “conflict entrepreneurs,” shape the narrative about women leaders during an organizational crisis.

While organizations routinely experience crises and failure, the manner in which women leaders are scrutinized during these events is often tinged with a higher intensity of personally directed negative attacks than their male counterparts. Ultimately, being caught in this type of scrutiny is likely to result in women’s turnover and, as such, is a setback for organizational efforts aimed at increasing inclusion at its highest levels.

What are some of the key differences you’ve found between traditional approaches and your stakeholder-first approach to addressing gender biases?

In the past, the focus has been on addressing gender bias using a one-size-fits-all approach, such as implicit bias training, or through leadership development programs targeted at high-potential women. While well-intentioned, this has not moved the needle forward, nor is it likely to be adequate in the current environment.

My co-authors and I call for organizational approaches that ask not what women can do differently but what organizations and their stakeholders can do differently to enable progress. We recommend mapping stakeholders based on their existing relationships with the firm and its leadership: How invested are stakeholders in the organization’s success? How closely do they engage with the leader and her team?

Based on where stakeholders stand with respect to these questions, we suggest developing customized strategies to resist or deter gender biases.

How do you recommend organizations address the spread of misinformation about a leader in a polarized environment?

Identifying stakeholders engaged and invested in the leader’s and the organization’s success is the first step because this group can be harnessed as potential high-level allies for the focal leader. At the same time, it would also be important to identify which stakeholders are less invested and disengaged and more susceptible to disinformation.

Some stakeholders may not have an opportunity to work closely with the leader but may still be invested in their success. We discuss why they might be more receptive to firsthand information about the leader’s capability through other senior leaders.

Overall, we detail customized ways to relate and communicate with different stakeholders. These strategies are based on identifying stakeholders’ motivations and the sources of their uncertainty or anxiety. We develop a typology to characterize various stakeholders and appropriate ways to engage them in reducing negative biases toward leaders during crises.

Would you recommend different strategies for companies preparing to hire a woman in leadership roles compared to those that already have women in leadership positions?

In preparing an incoming woman leader, a key actor is the outgoing leader. Our past research on incoming women CEOs across Fortune 500 companies shows the predecessor sets the stage for how stakeholders respond to the incoming leader.

In all the cases in which the newly appointed CEOs successfully led the firm to higher performance and even turned around struggling firms, the predecessor played an important role. Conversely, these outgoing CEOs can also be harmful and detract from a smooth transition that sets the leader up for success.

The role of the outgoing leader is a key differentiator between a new leader and an incumbent.