Gender Role Challenges

Being told you’re “easy to work with” is the worst compliment you could receive. Here’s why: Nine times out of ten, that “compliment” isn’t about your skills or leadership potential. It’s about your ability to shrink so that everyone else can be comfortable. How smoothly you silence your preferences, your truth, your self. How quietly you take on extra work and stay in line (whatever that means). If you're not careful, you'll mistake it for a badge of honor when in reality it's a receipt & proof that you've been paying the likability tax. The likability tax is the unspoken toll women—especially Black women and women of color—pay to be seen as non-threatening, agreeable, and palatable in the workplace. It’s the cost of downplaying your voice and muting your truth in exchange for being “liked.” And it’s expensive. It’s when you smile and nod, even when you disagree. It’s when you say “I’m good either way” when you're actually not. It’s when you edit the deck, run the meeting, take the notes, follow up, and still don't ask for credit because somewhere deep down, you've learned that being liked is safer than being loud. And don’t get it twisted—this isn’t about being a team player. This is about self-erasure dressed up as professionalism. Because we know on some teams, when a woman has a strong opinion, a clear boundary, or ambitious ask she's labeled. Either she's too much, too difficult, too assertive, too entitled, too ______. So instead of speaking up, she's always agreeable, pleasant, and quiet - trading her voice for job security. And what does she get in return? Praise but no promotion. Thanks but no pay increase. Titled "low maintenance" and applauded for her invisible labor. This is how women, especially Black women and women of color—get underpaid, underestimated, and overlooked while being told how “nice” they are to work with. But let’s be clear: Nice doesn’t build equity. Agreeable doesn’t close pay gaps. Being “easy” to work with won’t get you in the rooms where decisions are made. It just ensures you won’t be seen as a threat. So no, you're not thriving sis. You're surviving. And you're tired of downplaying your contributions so that others feel comfortable. Tired of working twice as hard and getting half the credit. Tired of claiming it's “teamwork” when it’s really just a masterclass in self-sacrifice. When you're as good as you are, certain people benefit from you being quiet than they do from you speaking up. You don't need to be easier to work with. They need to be better at working with women like you. The next time someone says, “You’re so easy to work with,” ask yourself why. You just may be paying the likability tax. — Found this valuable? Make sure to ♻️ repost because friends don’t let friends miss out on helpful content! Want to work with us? Book your Fulfilled Career Clarity Call here - isimemen.com/start

As GenAI becomes more ubiquitous, research alarmingly shows that women are using these tools at lower rates than men across nearly all regions, sectors, and occupations.   A recent paper from researchers at Harvard Business School, Berkeley, and Stanford synthesizes data from 18 studies covering more than 140k individuals worldwide.   Their findings:   • Women are approximately 22% less likely than men to use GenAI tools • Even when controlling for occupation, age, field of study, and location, the gender gap remains • Web traffic analysis shows women represent only 42% of ChatGPT users and 31% of Claude users   Factors Contributing the to Gap:   - Lack of AI Literacy: Multiple studies showed women reporting significantly lower familiarity with and knowledge about generative AI tools as the largest gender gap driver. - Lack of Training & Confidence: Women have lower confidence in their ability to effectively use AI tools and more likely to report needing training before they can benefit from generative AI.   - Ethical Concerns & Fears of Judgement: Women are more likely to perceive AI usage as unethical or equivalent to cheating, particularly in educational or assignment contexts. They’re also more concerned about being judged unfairly for using these tools.   The Potential Impacts: - Widening Pay & Opportunity Gap: Considerably lower AI adoption by women creates further risk of them falling behind their male counterparts, ultimately widening the gender gap in pay and job opportunities. - Self-Reinforcing Bias: AI systems trained primarily on male-generated data may evolve to serve women's needs poorly, creating a feedback loop that widens existing gender disparities in technology development and adoption.   As educators and AI literacy advocates, we face an urgent responsibility to close this gap and simply improving access is not enough. We need targeted AI literacy training programs, organizations committed to developing more ethical GenAI, and safe and supportive communities like our Women in AI + Education to help bridge this expanding digital divide.   Link to the full study in the comments. And a link also to learn more or join our Women in AI + Education Community. AI for Education #Equity #GenAI #Ailiteracy #womeninAI

As International Women’s Day nears, we’ll see the usual corporate gestures—empowerment panels, social media campaigns, and carefully curated success stories. But let’s be honest: these feel-good initiatives rarely change what actually holds women back at work on the daily basis. Instead, I suggest focusing on something concrete, something I’ve seen have the biggest impact in my work with teams: the unspoken dynamics that shape psychological safety. 🚨Because psychological safety is not the same for everyone. Psychological safety is often defined as a shared belief that one can take risks without fear of negative consequences. But let’s unpack that—who actually feels safe enough to take those risks? 🔹 Speaking up costs more for women Confidence isn’t the issue—consequences are. Women learn early that being too direct can backfire. Assertiveness can be read as aggression, while careful phrasing can make them seem uncertain. Over time, this calculation becomes second nature: Is this worth the risk? 🔹 Mistakes are stickier When men fail, it’s seen as part of leadership growth. When women fail, it often reinforces lingering doubts about their competence. This means that women aren’t more risk-averse by nature—they’re just more aware of the cost. 🔹 Inclusion isn’t just about presence Being at the table doesn’t mean having an equal voice. Women often find themselves in a credibility loop—having to repeatedly prove their expertise before their ideas carry weight. Meanwhile, those who fit the traditional leadership mold are often trusted by default. 🔹 Emotional labor is the silent career detour Women in teams do an extraordinary amount of behind-the-scenes work—mediating conflicts, softening feedback, ensuring inclusion. The problem? This work isn’t visible in performance reviews or leadership selection criteria. It’s expected, but not rewarded. What companies can do beyond IWD symbolism: ✅ Stop measuring "confidence"—start measuring credibility gaps If some team members always need to “prove it” while others are trusted instantly, you have a credibility gap, not a confidence issue. Fix how ideas get heard, not how women present them. ✅ Make failure a learning moment for everyone Audit how mistakes are handled in your team. Are men encouraged to take bold moves while women are advised to be more careful? Change the narrative around risk. ✅ Track & reward emotional labor If women are consistently mentoring, resolving conflicts, or ensuring inclusion, this isn’t just “being helpful”—it’s leadership. Make it visible, valued, and part of promotion criteria. 💥 This IWD, let’s skip the celebration and start the correction. If your company is serious about making psychological safety equal for everyone, let’s do the real work. 📅 I’m now booking IWD sessions focused on improving team dynamics and creating workplaces where women don’t just survive, but thrive. Book your spot and let’s turn good intentions into lasting impact.

This is the question we kept coming back to in our latest research at Shape Talent Ltd, where we surveyed over 2,300 women in the UK to better understand the persistent barriers to gender equality in corporate life. The data was stark: 🔹 98% of women face some combination of systemic barriers 🔹 Women in senior roles are more likely to feel undermined, inadequate, and cautious about speaking up 🔹 The ‘double burden’ of paid and unpaid work remains relentless and largely invisible 🔹 And the pressure to walk a narrow behavioural tightrope - the “double bind” - is alive and well But here’s what struck me most: these barriers are not just frustrating, they are predictable. They’re the result of outdated systems, norms and leadership models that still reflect a version of the workplace built around a 1950s archetype: the male breadwinner with a stay-at-home wife. It’s no wonder that are survey results showed that women, especially Black women, LGBTQ+ women, disabled women, and working mothers, continue to face uphill battles. The data shows their challenges aren’t just individual. They’re structural. And they’re compounded by bias and a chronic lack of meaningful career development. We cannot ‘fix’ women to fit into broken systems. We must fix the system. So, what next? 1. Rethink leadership expectations 2. Redesign processes with equity in mind 3. Build cultures of true psychological safety 4. Invest intentionally in women’s career development Incremental change is no longer enough. The pace of progress is glacial – and regressing. At this rate, gender equality won’t be reached until 2154. That’s five generations too late. If you're in a position of influence - HR, DEI, leadership, it’s time to move from intent to impact. Real progress starts with bold steps. #GenderEquality #Leadership #Equity #Inclusion #ShapeTalent #DoubleBurden #DoubleBind #WomenInLeadership #Intersectionality #EDI #DEI

"This report developed by UNESCO and in collaboration with the Women for Ethical AI (W4EAI) platform, is based on and inspired by the gender chapter of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. This concrete commitment, adopted by 194 Member States, is the first and only recommendation to incorporate provisions to advance gender equality within the AI ecosystem. The primary motivation for this study lies in the realization that, despite progress in technology and AI, women remain significantly underrepresented in its development and leadership, particularly in the field of AI. For instance, currently, women reportedly make up only 29% of researchers in the field of science and development (R&D),1 while this drops to 12% in specific AI research positions.2 Additionally, only 16% of the faculty in universities conducting AI research are women, reflecting a significant lack of diversity in academic and research spaces.3 Moreover, only 30% of professionals in the AI sector are women,4 and the gender gap increases further in leadership roles, with only 18% of in C-Suite positions at AI startups being held by women.5 Another crucial finding of the study is the lack of inclusion of gender perspectives in regulatory frameworks and AI-related policies. Of the 138 countries assessed by the Global Index for Responsible AI, only 24 have frameworks that mention gender aspects, and of these, only 18 make any significant reference to gender issues in relation to AI. Even in these cases, mentions of gender equality are often superficial and do not include concrete plans or resources to address existing inequalities. The study also reveals a concerning lack of genderdisaggregated data in the fields of technology and AI, which hinders accurate measurement of progress and persistent inequalities. It highlights that in many countries, statistics on female participation are based on general STEM or ICT data, which may mask broader disparities in specific fields like AI. For example, there is a reported 44% gender gap in software development roles,6 in contrast to a 15% gap in general ICT professions.7 Furthermore, the report identifies significant risks for women due to bias in, and misuse of, AI systems. Recruitment algorithms, for instance, have shown a tendency to favor male candidates. Additionally, voice and facial recognition systems perform poorly when dealing with female voices and faces, increasing the risk of exclusion and discrimination in accessing services and technologies. Women are also disproportionately likely to be the victims of AI-enabled online harassment. The document also highlights the intersectionality of these issues, pointing out that women with additional marginalized identities (such as race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or disability) face even greater barriers to accessing and participating in the AI field."

We talk a lot about the mental load women carry at home. But what about the mental load women carry at work. In corporate environments, women disproportionately take on non‑promotable, invisible labor — note‑taking, scheduling, follow‑ups, calendar coordination, and making sure nothing falls through the cracks. Research shows this adds up to about 1 extra month of work per year compared to men. Women of colour are even more impacted. About 25 years ago, I stepped in to support my CEO while his Executive Assistant was on leave. My role wasn’t just booking meetings. It was ensuring his schedule was locked and loaded across systems: his computer calendar, his Palm Pilot (showing my age), and a printed daily schedule. My mistake? I didn’t verbally remind him before leaving the office that he had a 7 a.m. breakfast meeting the next morning. He missed it — and when he arrived at the office, he was furious with me. Apparently 2 tech reminders and 1 printed copy wasn’t enough. He needed a verbal reminder. Fast‑forward 25 years. I was sitting in a professional working group where the only man in the room said — very casually — that he would not be the one taking notes. The implication was unspoken but obvious: someone else would do it — and it would be a woman. Different decade. Same expectation. This isn’t about note‑taking. It’s about who carries mental labor at work — and who is allowed to opt out of it. And until that changes, we shouldn’t pretend this is accidental.

It's not the pipeline, It's the System. June 23rd is celebrated as 'International Women in Engineering Day" #INWED Sadly the harsh reality, engineering colleges in India produce the highest number of women in STEM graduates/engineers and many of them actually do make it to the workforce. The real challenge is their retention and progression. With 2+ decades in tech and now consulting for tech companies on their Gender Equity Strategy, I’ve seen this challenge firsthand. The issue isn’t talent availability, it’s systemic. In most households, a woman’s career is still seen as optional. That mindset and bias bleeds into workplaces, shaping how women are hired, retained, and promoted. So what can organisations do, 1. Relook at org culture and design. Are your systems, policies, and leadership norms built equitably to support who stays, rises and how. 2. Representation matters, especially in especially in mid and senior levels, invest in retention and have hiring goals across grades. 3. Move from gendered to gender neutral policies. Eg. Maternity to Parental Leave Policy that supports all care-givers. Reframe workplace policies from “women-centric benefits” to equitable caregiving support that normalise shared responsibility and reduce bias. 4. Women in Tech Returnee programs - I've seen immense success in these programs, that offer companies experienced tech talent with a little investment. #Vapasi from Thoughtworks, #Spring from Publicis Sapient are two examples 5. Conduct Stay Interviews, Not Exit Interviews. Understand why women leave and what it takes for them to stay and grow and act on the inputs. 3. A Clear Career Progression Path with mentorship and sponsorship - Bias in growth opportunity for #WIT is real, if there is no intentional support to overcome these bias, talent walks away. 4. I Need to See More Like Me! There is a lack of role models. Accelerated Women in tech leadership programs, fast-tracking the leadership journey of high potential women are some ways to address this. 5. Collective Ownership. Gender Diversity in tech is not a HR, leadership or DEI responsibility. Make it the very fabric of the org. to drive shared accountability. 6. Data is not just diagnostic, it's directional. It guides us on investments to be made, unseen bias and where and what needs to change, it's your mirror don't ignore it. #Inclusion is a organisational capability and leaders are it's torch bearers. Their actions, direction and decisions every single day, signal what truly matters. The Women in tech, talent pool exists. The question is, are you ready to retain, grow, and lead with them? #WomenInTech #WIT #GenderEquity #DiversityInTech Diversity Simplified Image description: A newspaper article titled “It’s Not the Pipeline, It’s the System” from Times of India, Bangalore edition which highlights the gender gap in engineering.

A concept that came up in coaching yesterday was the double-bind. I've spoken previously about the glass cliff, the glass ceiling, and similar terms that are helpful in giving language to inequities faced by women & women of colour in the workplace. As someone who has been labelled as 'combative' by a previous manager, it's exhausting & frustrating AF trying to navigate layers of unspoken expectations and biases while striving to remain true to oneself and succeed professionally. The double bind for women of colour is where they encounter conflicting demands or expectations that place them in a no-win situation. Here are some ways this shows up - 🎤 Assertiveness vs. Likability: there is a risk of being perceived as aggressive or abrasive. This can sometimes lead to unfair backlash that other colleagues may not face. On the other hand, if one chooses to be more reserved to avoid negative perceptions, they may seem to struggle showcasing their leadership qualities. 🎤 Professionalism vs. Authenticity: Bringing your 'whole selves' to work and highlighting cultural identities is encouraged, but this can sometimes result in facing microaggressions, tokenism or feeling like one doesn't quite fit in with the company's culture. On the flip side, downplaying cultural identity to fit in may leave them feeling disconnected and inauthentic, impacting their job satisfaction and performance. 🎤 Competence vs. Approachability: In a predominantly white or male-dominated work environment, the pressure to prove competence while also being approachable can be overwhelming. While showcasing high competence is essential, it can inadvertently intimidate colleagues (aka tall poppy syndrome) and lead to social isolation. On the other hand, focusing on being approachable and accommodating may undervalue their competence, causing them to miss out on career opportunities. 🎤 Diversity Advocate vs. Professional Identity: women of color are often expected to take on this role (often unpaid) in the workplace. This can sometimes overshadow their professional skills and career aspirations. Striking a balance between advocating for diversity and focusing on their career path can be a difficult task, as they may face criticism for not fully embracing the role. 🎤 Visibility vs. Scrutiny: The yardstick is not the same for women in leadership! While being visible is important for serving as role models, it can also subject them to higher levels of scrutiny and criticism compared to their peers. This increased scrutiny may lead them to avoid visibility, resulting in missed opportunities for career advancement. Have you faced similar experiences? How did you navigate the same? #GenderEquality #Inclusion #genderEquity #InclusionAtWork #InclusiveWorkplaces #DoubleBind #WomenOfColour

I've watched brilliant gender advisors burn out trying to change their organizations single-handedly. They develop comprehensive gender action plans. Facilitate participatory strategy sessions. Deliver training after training. Check every box. And still, nothing sticks. After 15 years working across international development, NGOs, and corporate settings, I've seen this pattern repeat itself: talented, passionate gender focal points left alone to champion inclusion - while leadership remains unchanged. Here's the uncomfortable truth: Gender equality initiatives fail not because the strategies are wrong, but because leadership hasn't developed the skills to embed them. You cannot delegate organizational transformation to one person or one department. Gender-responsive leadership must be a core competency across all levels - from senior management to team leads. The difference between organizations that achieve real results and those that don't? Their leaders have moved beyond good intentions. They've built concrete skills in: → Gender analysis that informs every decision → Bias interruption as a daily practice → Communication that creates inclusion and psychological safety → Accountability systems that drive change When leadership is gender-responsive and inclusive, those gender action plans don't gather dust. Staff training creates lasting behavior change. Inclusion becomes embedded in how work gets done -- not an add-on managed by one overwhelmed person. This is what happens → Better decision-making. Stronger team performance. Higher retention. Innovation that reflects diverse perspectives. Results that actually reach all stakeholders. This is why I focus my work on building gender-responsive and inclusive leadership capacity throughout organizations - not just supporting gender specialists, but equipping every leader with the skills to drive inclusion. If you're a gender advisor or focal point who feels like you're pushing a boulder uphill alone, this isn't on you. The system needs to change. And if you're in leadership and wondering why your gender and inclusion initiatives aren't delivering results - this is why. What's your experience? Have you seen the difference that gender-responsive and inclusive leadership makes - or witnessed the challenges when it's missing? #GenderResponsiveLeadership #InclusiveLeadership #GenderTrainer #GenderTraining #GenderResponsiveCommunication #GenderResponsiveCommunications

I was shocked when I realized the greatest challenge to closing the economic gender gap in Africa. And I think it's important everyone learns about it as well. Here goes: The greatest challenge to closing the gender gap, and why it is estimated that it will take more than 150 years to close the gap in Africa, is the significant perception vs. reality gap. Let me explain: According to research by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) & United Nations Global Compact, who surveyed 4000 men and women across Africa, they found that more than 50% of men and women in Sub-Saharan Africa believe that there is gender parity and/or women are ahead in their country when it comes to various indicators, including equal pay for work of equal value. Ironically, about 40% of the same men and women surveyed believe that men are better leaders than women in analytical and technical skills as well as leadership abilities. In reality however, even though women in Sub-Saharan Africa have higher rates of participation (54%) in the economy than global averages, 90% of them work informally, predominantly in low-skilled jobs, given their historical gap in access to education. They hold only nearly a quarter of management positions, with only 16% of CEO/MD positions held by women. And though this rate has been growing over the past 20 years, with the current rate, it is estimated that it will take more than 150 years to close the gender gap on the continent. So, the question now is what needs to be done? We all need to play our part in addressing the barriers that hold women back: - Every business needs policies against discrimination and harassment. - Flexible options like remote work and flexible hours are essential for working parents and women. - Training staff on gender equality and offering skills training for women are smart investments. - Programs such as financial literacy and business mentorship are crucial for female entrepreneurs and the self-employed. - Providing better access to financial products is vital for entrepreneurs and should be prioritized by banks and other businesses. - Equal pay and benefits, along with better parental leave and caregiving support, are important goals. Women's participation in the economy greatly boosts a country's productivity and can significantly increase GDP—by up to 50% in Africa—thanks to the added workforce and the benefits of gender diversity. The study authored by Qahir Dhanani and team (Sanda Ojiambo, Tolulope Lewis Tamoka, Lina Al Qaddoumi, Zineb Sqalli, Natasha Lendich, Maxime Kpangbai) also revealed a fascinating trend: women-led startups deliver a whopping 10% higher ROI. And that's not all! It also suggested that income earned by women has a significantly greater impact on communities compared to income earned by men. These findings highlight the incredible potential of bridging the economic gender gap.