Workforce Diversity Reporting

In yesterday's post on the FCA's Diversity and Inclusion consultation, I questioned whether their proposals (which largely reduce DEI to demographic diversity statistics) would improve customer welfare. Here I discuss the FCA's second goal of improving the UK's international competitiveness (by increasing talent from underrepresented groups). All of yesterday's concerns continue to apply. 1. The proposals focus on very narrow aspects of diversity - what can be measured, not what's important. Other sources of underrepresentation are: a. Socioeconomic background, given the power of wealth and contacts. b. Regional background. Even a different accent can affect whether you get a job, or how seriously you are taken by colleagues or clients. c. Personality type. How often is someone not hired or promoted because they're said to be not aggressive or assertive enough? 2. What matters is not just diversity but inclusion: whether minorities can thrive rather than just having jobs. A minority could be a bully; a white male could be a mentor. Moreover, additional concerns apply here. 3. Targets undermine merit. If a company has announced a target for (say) senior women, and a woman is promoted out of merit, colleagues and clients may think she was promoted to meet the target. I was once approached to apply for a board position because it needed to increase its “number of non-white faces”. 4. Targets are divisive. They can create divisions in a company and worsen culture because one party benefits at the expense of others. A white male may believe he has limited promotion prospects and thus be less motivated. More broadly, the focus on symptoms, not problems, has missed a real opportunity to address the underlying causes of lack of diversity. Taking gender diversity in fund management as an example, a significant hurdle to women becoming portfolio managers is that the major promotion decision (from analyst to PM) typically occurs when many women have children. Most women take extended parental leave, but men rarely do. If a woman is overlooked for promotion pre-kids, her earnings may have fallen significantly behind her partner’s post-kids. The family dynamic may either dissuade her from returning to work, or require her to bear more childcare responsibilities after returning, hindering promotion. Even if a woman has made PM prior to leave, there are still barriers. When one PM was on leave for more than six weeks, her employer ended her CF30 approval (part of the FCA’s Approved Persons regime at the time) leaving a gap in her track record. Track record is crucial in fund management, affecting her client inflows, ability to launch a new fund, and likelihood of being assigned to a bigger fund. My response to the consultation is below, which I hope is helpful to both the FCA and also companies and investors interested in diversity. https://lnkd.in/eWgkd8qz.

"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."

Today we released 'Speeding up progress towards gender economic equality', the third report from our Jobs and Skills Australia Gender Economic Equality Study.   The report includes 10 recommendations for speeding up progress through action. 1. A three-year Shifting the Dial Policy Action and Evaluation Agenda, with national coordinated action beyond 2029 2. Intervene earlier in study choices through curriculum and career supports in schools 3. Leveraging the National Skills Agreement and introducing gender targets in reporting 4. Targeted action on highly gender segregated in shortage VET training pathways 5. First Nations-focused VET reforms and a standalone plan for First Nations Women’s Economic Equality 6. Industry and employers to supercharge inclusive and safe workplaces 7. Extend policies to normalise men’s involvement in unpaid care and domestic work 8. Embed the Gender Segregation Intensity Scale across government 9. Address gender and other bias in labour market and skills frameworks 10. Expand intersectional data, research, and reporting These recommendations were informed by a broad range of consultation, and underpinned by the extensive data analysis and research in our first two papers.   As a reminder, Paper 1 identified: * Australia's workforce remains highly gender segregated, and there are clear connections with gendered choices, divides and outcomes across education and training pathways. * Gendered occupational segregation is complex and difficult to shift. However, there are encouraging examples. * Gendered occupational segregation is a problem for addressing occupation shortages—with clear economic impacts. * There are large gender pay gaps at the detailed occupation level, even in gender balanced or highly female dominated occupations. * There are sources of compounding gendered and racial discrimination in the world of work, education and training—particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. * There is value in more data and monitoring. In Paper 2, we highlighted that: * Gendered segregation in education and training remains entrenched, with current enrolment and completion patterns unlikely to shift occupational gender segregation. * Only 20% of narrow fields of education have gender balance in their graduates. * Social and cultural norms strongly influence education and training choices and pathways, and subsequent occupation and career pathways. * Women are more likely to be ‘skills mismatched’—working below their level of qualification. * Economic inequality persists post-training, with women consistently earning less and being more likely to exit the workforce despite being similarly or more qualified. * Men generally achieve better economic outcomes across most VET qualifications, even in female dominated fields. * Workers tend to stay longer in occupations dominated by their gender. For more, see: https://lnkd.in/gpbjdR2f

In recent years, many organizations have taken visible steps to improve gender diversity, investing in recruitment, mentorship, and leadership development programs to bring more women into their ranks. These efforts reflect a growing recognition that diverse teams drive better decision-making, innovation, and organizational performance. But while increasing gender diversity is an important milestone, a critical question remains: Does greater representation of women also translate into greater fairness—specifically, more gender pay equity? Or are organizations celebrating progress on diversity while leaving deep disparities in compensation unaddressed? My wonderful colleagues Dr. Claudia Holtschlag, Dr. Carlos Morales, Aline D. Masuda and I explored this question in a study that was just published in Human Resource Management (HRM) (Wiley). 📄 Full paper: https://lnkd.in/dP3kprRJ The answer to our question: Not necessarily. Here’s what we found in our longitudinal study of 9,000+ observations: 🔹 Women with lower initial pay tend to receive larger raises—consistent with equity-based pay policies. 🔹 But in work units that have already achieved gender balance, these equity-based raises weaken or stop altogether. 🔹 Why? It seems that once visible diversity goals (like a balanced ratio of female and male employees) are met, organizations feel the work is “done”—even when deep-seated inequities (like pay gaps) persist. We call this the diversity paradox: When well-intentioned diversity efforts signal progress, they may inadvertently stall further action toward real equity. Why this matters: Representation is just one part of the DEI equation. Without attention to how people are actually treated and rewarded, diversity initiatives risk creating symbolic progress rather than systemic change. 🔍 Diversity metrics ≠ equity outcomes. 📊 True progress requires tracking representation, opportunity, and reward together. We hope this research supports HR leaders, DEI professionals, and policymakers working to move from performative diversity to real equity. #DEI #GenderEquity #PayEquity #Leadership #DiversityParadox #PeopleAnalytics #HumanResources #Inclusion #WorkplaceEquity

Please stop telling your recruitment partners that "it'd be great if you could find a woman for the team". ❌ Instead, start doing the following... ✅ Evaluate your sales culture. If it's feels like a "boys club", it is. Fix it. ✅ Analyse the language you are using. Gendered wording of job advertisements signals who belongs and who does not. "Masculine- worded ads reduced perceived belongingness [among women], which in turn lead to less job appeal, regardless of one’s perception of their personal skill to perform that job." - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, January 2011 - (🔗 Link in comments.) ✅ Provide workplace flexibility A 2023 study conducted by the University of Oxford’s Well-being Research Centre found that when it comes to fostering a positive working environment, reducing stress, and boosting employee resilience, flexibility is one of the most effective elements required to create a healthy work-life balance. The findings correlate with a separate study which found that post-pandemic, 72% of women are prioritising purpose and balance at work, and are looking for the flexibility that facilitates this. (🔗 Link in comments.) ✅ Build an infrastructure and culture of coaching and support. The opportunity to be coached by other women (both internal and external) goes a long way in not only developing existing staff members, but also in attracting new talent. (Bonus point: ensure your interview processes are as gender diverse as possible. You can't be what you can't see.) ✅ Implement gender-neutral and diversity-inclusive policies. Offer gender-neutral parental leave policies to prevent issues like absence visibility, project loss, and early return pressure. In my experience, the Nordics lead the way in gender-equitable parental leave policies, for example. ✅ Address any existing gender pay gaps. It's 2024... This shouldn't even have to be a point. I'm a recruitment & search professional. I'm not a DE&I specialist. But I really hope one day the conversation changes from "it'd be great if you could find us a woman" to "we have awesome diversity in our team because...". Women in sales & those of you in gender diverse businesses - what else would you add? LP ✌️ Pack GTM | SaaS Sales Recruitment in Germany #sales #hiring #careers #startups #recruitment 

We've been adding women to projects for 30 years. Development gaps remain. Maybe the problem isn't the women. Maybe it's the projects. Here's what's I think go wrong (at every stage): ↳ At Programming, we conduct gender analysis after the priorities are already set. So the analysis confirms the plan instead of shaping it. ↳ At Identification, we consult women's groups late, after the project concept is fixed. Their input becomes decoration, not design. ↳ At Formulation, we write gender objectives into the logframe but not into the budget. Unfunded objectives aren't objectives. They're intentions. ↳ At Implementation, we count women's participation but not women's power. Attendance is not influence. A room full of women who didn't shape the agenda is not gender mainstreaming. ↳ At Evaluation, we ask "did women benefit?" but not "did the project change anything structural?" So we celebrate outputs and miss the fact that the same barriers will exist in the next project too. The fix isn't complicated. It's just earlier, deeper, and more honest: → Run the gender analysis before political dialogue, not after → Put gender in the Terms of Reference, not just the report → Allocate a real budget line — not a percentage of leftovers → Build M&E indicators that can detect unequal outcomes, not just unequal numbers → Ask at evaluation: what would we design differently next time? Gender mainstreaming isn't a checklist. It's a decision to let evidence about inequality actually change what you do. Thirty years in, that decision is still optional in most project cycles. It shouldn't be. ----- Join my FREE mailing list to receive these insights directly in your inbox 👉 https://lnkd.in/ec8mqV2M

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫 is not simply a task to complete or an obligatory requirement in a proposal package. It should never be treated as a technical formality or a box to tick. Instead, 𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭’𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧. It requires a clear understanding of how the intervention is built on solid 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐞𝐬, and how the project aims to address the 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 of gender inequalities. A strong gender marker should demonstrate how the project intends to influence and 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐬 that perpetuate inequality. It should explain how the intervention will contribute to 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 of women and girls, not only by including them as beneficiaries but by actively strengthening their position within their families, communities, and institutions. This also means intentionally 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐲𝐬 as partners in change, through awareness sessions, dialogue, and community mobilization; so they can play a constructive role in challenging discriminatory practices and influencing others to adopt more equitable behaviors. At the same time, gender-responsive programming must focus on 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 of girls and women. This includes strengthening their awareness of their rights, developing their skills and knowledge, and creating safe spaces where they can express their voices, raise concerns, and influence their peers and communities. Equally important is ensuring that women and girls have improved 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 and meaningful 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 over them, whether those resources are economic opportunities, education, services, or information. Projects should also consider how to 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬, and influence 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 that shape gender relations and opportunities. Ultimately, the gender marker should capture how the project contributes to transformative change. It is about assessing, holistically, how gender equality is embedded throughout the entire project cycle: from design and planning, to implementation, monitoring, learning, and closure. When gender is genuinely integrated in this way, projects move beyond participation toward transformation. They contribute to shifting power relations, expanding opportunities, and promoting fairness and dignity for everyone. In this sense, a gender marker is not merely a technical score. It is a reflection of the project’s commitment to advancing gender equality and contributing to broader social justice. #IWD2026 #WeObject #GenderEquality #Gender

⭐ Today we unveil key insights from our upcoming Outlook Study on #AI and #Gender. Our findings reveal that current AI #policyframeworks often overlook gender considerations. Notably, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) indicates that gender equality is one of the lowest-scoring areas in government frameworks. Out of 138 countries assessed, only 24 mention gender in AI, and a mere 18 address it significantly. The study also highlights the specific #risks women face from biased AI systems, such as recruitment #algorithms favoring male candidates. According to MIT’s AI Risk Repository, issues affecting women are predominantly categorized under Discrimination and Toxicity, emphasizing biases that lead to stereotyping and marginalization. Moreover, the lack of gender-disaggregated data hampers our ability to assess the effectiveness of interventions. Our study combines in-depth analysis, real-world examples, and actionable policy recommendations to expose how biases disproportionately affect women, revealing systemic barriers to gender equality in AI. Through the implementation of the Recommendation on the #Ethics of AI and the W4EAI network, UNESCO is committed to driving meaningful change. To foster a more inclusive AI landscape, we must confront these challenges head-on and advocate for diversity and equitable outcomes for all. Let's work together to create a better future!

How exactly – and when – does gender diversity in R&D labs enable firms to better innovate 💡💰? Our analysis of 552 corporate R&D departments observed over 12 years provides some answers. We identify three pathways linking gender diversity in R&D labs and firm-level innovation (measured as the successful introduction of new products): 🧭 Breadth of external knowledge 📡 Use of external knowledge 🛠️ Implementation quality We show that the impact of R&D lab gender diversity on a firm’s innovation is most potent when men and women are proportionally represented at all lab ranks (e.g., scientists, technicians and staff). Specifically: 🔹The effect of gender diversity on breadth of external knowledge search shifts from negative (when women are concentrated in one of the ranks) to positive (when they are proportionally represented at all ranks). 🔹The gender diversity effect on use of external knowledge becomes increasingly positive and implementation difficulties are attenuated as proportional representation improves at all ranks. The paper is available here: https://lnkd.in/e6kxRwk7 Shout out to my most excellent co-authors, Boris Lokshin and Christophe Boone. And with much gratitude to the many folks who have moved the conversation forward in this space, including: Nancy DiTomaso, Dali Ma, Jonathan Ziegert, Daan van Knippenberg, Dr. Andreas Hundschell, Prof. Dr. Julia Backmann, Stefan Razinskas, Martin Högl, Gerben Van Der Vegt, Stuart Bunderson, Mathias Wullum Nielsen, Londa Schiebinger, among many others!        

In McKinsey’s latest Women in the Workplace report—covering India, Nigeria, and Kenya—we see a stark truth: In Nigeria’s formal private sector, women make up only 33% of entry-level roles, and this figure barely improves as they ascend. Despite making up half of the national workforce, the formal sector remains largely inaccessible to women—especially in senior leadership where only 29% of C-suite roles are held by women. Yet, sectors like law and healthcare prove that gender parity is achievable. Legal firms in Nigeria report near-parity across leadership, thanks to strong mentorship cultures. In contrast, financial services show a 19-point drop from entry-level to C-suite—a broken pipeline that needs urgent fixing. As someone working at the nexus of health equity, financial inclusion, and systems transformation, I believe this report highlights a clear call to action: Three Immediate Priorities for Private Sector Leaders: 1. Diagnose the Real Gaps Track gender-disaggregated metrics across hiring, promotion, attrition, and lateral hiring. Without data, there’s no accountability. 2. Design Beyond Policy – Focus on Uptake Merely having DEI policies isn’t enough. The companies with better representation adopt differentiator policies like mentorship, flexible work, and family care—and ensure they are used. 3. Monitor with Purpose Only 15% of boards hold themselves accountable for gender outcomes. Let’s make gender diversity a core strategic KPI reviewed quarterly at the board level. As we push forward with financial and digital inclusion for millions of women in Nigeria’s informal sector, we cannot ignore the parallel need to build inclusive and equitable formal workplaces. Our economic sustainability depends on it. What actions is your organization taking to improve women’s representation across all levels? #GenderEquality #InclusionMatters #Leadership #Nigeria #WomenInWork #McKinseyReport #FinancialInclusion #Sustainability #InclusiveGrowth McKinsey & Company Lean In