Ibarra, Ely and Kolb suggest that the culprit for the dearth of women in top management positions is ‘second generation gender bias’. First generation bias refers to direct and intentional discriminatory practices. Second generation bias refers to attitudes, behaviors and practices that do not seem overtly biased but that are embedded in taken-for-granted stereotypical beliefs. In the case of women and leadership, beliefs about what leaders do and their leadership style, what previous work experiences lead to building leadership potential, what is a good work-life balance, and the appropriate age for certain key promotions, all lead to less women identifying themselves and being identified for leadership positions. This is also referred to as the labyrinth of leadership for women. Second generation bias is difficult to see because it is systemic and taken-for-granted by most collaborators, including those who are negatively impacted by it. Ibarra, Ely and Kolb suggest that in the case of second generation gender bias and its impact on women and leadership, it is important to first, educate men and women about this bias which is insidious and difficult to recognise. Second, create safe identity work spaces for women to support them into new leadership roles. And three, anchor women's development in a sense of leadership purpose as opposed to who they are perceived and expected to be. Sculley and her colleagues suggest that if we look at what has been done so far on gender, fixing the women, celebrating the differences, and creating equal opportunity, these approaches are focused on correcting inequalities in different ways, but fundamentally do not question the status quo. Let’s take the example of what they call, ‘fixing the women’. This approach assumes that women lack essential skills and know-how that are necessary for management and leadership, which can be gained through training, and mentoring. This approach puts the responsibility on women to develop the skillsets necessary to be like men. ‘Celebrating the differences’ is an approach that assumes and recognizes fundamental gender differences. It focuses on how women differ from men, for example by focussing and putting value on female leadership styles associated with nurturing and caring. However, in the end, it ends up reinforcing gender stereotypes and justifying gender differences. The third approach, ‘creating equal opportunity’ recognizes gender differences in the power and opportunity structure and attempts are made to create a level playing field by reducing structural barriers through initiative such as quotas and affirmative action. However, this approach has minimal impact on questioning the status quo and the existing organizational culture, and creates the possibility of backlash from majority groups. In the end, Sculley and her colleagues suggest that it is necessary to change the culture of organizations to allow different talents to be seen, heard, and appreciated, and thereby to make meaningful contributions. Some firms have started to deal with this by focusing on unconscious bias. This is synonymous with second generation bias. The focus is on the individual and how perceptual biases lead to suboptimal decisions - be they about identifying talent, capturing innovative ideas or seeing windows of opportunity. Much of unconscious bias training is about giving information on what it is and its consequences on work related behaviors. For the most part, the approach is about awareness. And while it has generated interest, its impact on changing diversity-related behaviors remains to be seen. At best, it results in treating others as you want to be treated. Because of this, dealing with diversity and inclusion in a non-disruptive manner, without directly addressing the psychological and social discomfort that diversity encounters can generate, has not been sufficient to fundamentally change individual behaviors and organizational processes and culture. The push factors have generated diversity strategies that have attempted to increase the number of minority groups and women in the workplace. The pull factors have convinced some, but not all organizations around the world that they need to work on inclusion. Diversity strategies have shown their limits and inclusion remains elusive. What if the missing link to inclusiveness was disruption at the individual and also the organizational level? Disruption is a source of surprise and potential disequilibrium. It is also potentially a learning opportunity to see things through a new perspective, including how we interact with others, and what is our relationship to organizations and to work. Diversity experiences take us out of our comfort zones and are fundamentally disruptive. While they can solicit self-protective reactions, they can also be a source of excitement in much the same way that we are challenged and encouraged to learn and grow when we travel to new destinations. We need to develop an understanding of how we react to differences, and a methodology that we can use to analyze the effects of diversity encounters on our own and others reactions. Having an analytical methodology can help us to try out different relations and to develop new reflexes that help us to see the world through another's eyes and to treat others as they want to be treated. Inclusion is therefore about individual development and organizational change.
