In a new blog post on the Comms Women platform, Dr Karen Vollum-Dix, from Leeds Beckett University, writes about her new book, Gender Equality in the Professional Workplace: Pioneering Radical Action for Women’s Empowerment, published with Emerald. The same post has also been published on Karen’s Substack account, where she writes about her work.
Some women were given the right to vote in 1918, yet women are still under-represented in positions of power; the pace of change is glacially slow, and if we keep changing at the current rate, women will quite rightly be looking back in 100 years’ time and wondering why their mothers and grandmothers allowed patriarchy, misogyny, and masculine hegemony to become so normalized that they survived so long. The reasons why change to date has been so slow are many and complex, and there are no simple solutions that, when implemented, will create a perfect, gender balanced world, not least because there are too many different opinions about what a perfect world might look like.
For each of us, our beliefs and opinions are influenced by a range of external factors, including culture, family, background, education, and experience, and internal factors, including personality, values, beliefs, and the learning we gain from our experiences. For each of us, the combination of those factors is unique. Some people see the world in absolute terms, with binary or dichotomous thinking; things are either right or wrong, good or bad, and there is little or no room for nuances or complexity. Others see the world with relativistic thinking; they see nuance, embrace ambiguity, recognize context, complexity, and relationships, and can consider multiple perspectives, seeing situations on a spectrum rather than as binary choices. Neither of these ways of seeing the world is right or wrong; we are all different, however, it comes as no surprise that we all have different opinions, ideas, and visions of what a perfect world might be like.
I happen to see many choices on a spectrum with no clear or simple binary choice; I frequently see more than one perspective, and both sides of an argument – I have been accused of being indecisive while I internally weigh up the options which confront me. There are times when I have (fleetingly) thought that arguments would be simpler if I could just hold onto one perspective and remain entrenched in that view, rather than being open to consideration of different ideas. That does not mean that I wish to become entrenched; I embrace the value of cognitive flexibility. I enjoy a good debate, whether that is between me and others, or with what I refer to in Gender Equality in the Professional Workplace, as my alter ego. In the book, I have coined the term autoduoethnography to describe this approach. Duoethnography is a qualitative research approach in which researchers experiences are explored and interrogated through conversation. In autoduoethnography, those conversations represent exploration of the different perspectives that an individual can see; conversations with oneself. My personal experiences are inevitably and intentionally woven into the narrative of the book, and strongly, unashamedly influence the content. I also draw on academic literature and contemporary news articles to give context and substance to my narrative in the hope that in every chapter, the reader will find previously unknown facts, ideas, or opinions; I sincerely hope that reading my words causes the reader to feel emotion, whether that be agreement, outrage, disbelief, empathy, or a reminder of personal experiences. I want the narrative in the book to trigger conversations, the sharing of ideas, and to sow the seeds for transformative action and change.
I write from several academic perspectives, and for each I dedicate a chapter which begins with a discussion of relevant academic and contemporary literature, and ends with an autoduoethnographic discussion, a summary of key ideas, and a collection of ‘food for thought’ points which are potentially the conversation starters. My first perspective is Radical Feminism and Patriarchy; if your first mental image of a radical feminist is a middle-aged, bra-burning white woman with unshaved legs and hairy armpits, waving a man-hating placard, then you have fallen for an outdated stereotype and misunderstand who we are. Not all radical feminists are militant activists, we do not seek to steal men’s jobs or to replace patriarchy with matriarchal dominance. We seek a fair balance of power in a society where life choices are not determined by gender. Yes, of course, you can be an activist and make yourself visible; however, there are other ways to use your voice for change. What is important is that we (whatever our gender) are prepared to make changes to our attitudes, behaviours, and expectations, and that we question and challenge current societal norms, advocating for change. When your grandchildren ask you what you did to address gender imbalances in society, what will you tell them?
My second perspective is Ecofeminism, which stems from an integration of ideas from the feminist, ecology, and peace movements of the 1970s and 1980s. Feminism runs through its core; however, ecofeminism extends beyond the rights of women to those of every living thing, human and non-human, with an aim of ecological sustainability. There are different perspectives in ecofeminism that share the inseparable and intertwined objectives to end human oppression and the exploitation and degradation of the planet. The current approach to capitalism and organisational ownership is patriarchal, linear, and based on the principles of share ownership, shareholder reward, production, and productivity, where we move from the depletion of one natural resource to another. Environmental sustainability requires a shift from the depletion of resources to a natural cycle, aligned with reproduction, recycling, and replenishment; a more feminine approach. Women’s activism has made a significant impact on the environmental agenda, and greater gender balance in organisational leadership is likely to encourage a shift from traditional profit-focused shareholder ownership to one that considers the organisational impact on all stakeholders, including the planet, as well as the need for financial sustainability. As consumers, we can also influence change through the purchasing choices we make.
When I first thought about the concepts of equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes, I thought they were merely different ways of expressing the same thing. In fact, the basic principle behind equality of opportunity in the work context is that no one should be barred from an occupation on the grounds of their personal characteristics; jobs should be open to all, and once in a role, natural talents and ability should determine a person’s progress. Positive action is associated with equality of opportunity, as a way of levelling the playing field and enabling access to all. On the other hand, equality of outcomes aims to ensure that those who are disadvantaged can make gains and have access to resources and experiences not currently open to them. Affirmative action is associated with equality of outcomes and includes approaches such as quotas and women-only shortlists. Fundamental to this approach is the redistribution of wealth and resources to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots, on the basis that if the disadvantaged have more resources, then they will be able to participate more fully in society. Both approaches have their critics; they seem to me to be underpinned by different political philosophies, and arguably, neither is sustainable in a culture where there is institutional and systemic bias and discrimination.
There are several metaphors which seek to explain the lack of progress of women in organisations, these include glass ceilings and sticky floors, as well as glass elevators, glass cliffs, broken rungs, and ladders pulled up behind those women who have made it to the top. Some of the data is stark; the Trade Union Council (TUC) reported that in 2024 the gender pay gap in the UK was 14.3% and reducing at a rate that means it will take at least 20 years to close. This is a more optimistic forecast than some. Women are seven times more likely to leave, or never enter the labour market due to caring duties, than men, and traditionally low-paid jobs such as caring for the elderly, child care, and primary school teaching are more likely to be done by women than by men (TUC, 2024). In these caring professions, however, there is a disproportionate number of men in senior positions. The reasons behind gender pay gaps, unequal representation in senior roles and the speed with which men and women progress through the organisational hierarchy are many and complex; there are some great examples of successful women, there are more examples of women trapped in low paid work, or seeing themselves overtaken in the ‘rat race’ by men. We must be encouraged by the successes, but never lose sight of the reality for many who face structural inequality and bias in society and in the workplace. We cannot continue to accept male-centric societal and workplace structures as the norm; we must have the courage and drive to challenge and question the status quo, and to support, rather than criticise, those others (regardless of gender) whom we see acting with that courage and drive.
The final perspective included is that of futures and foresight learning (FFL), a term introduced by Professor Jeff Gold (Gold et al. 2024), which has its origins in methods of strategic forecasting and scenario planning, and which focusses on the power of the learning to be gained by thinking about the potential future consequences of the decisions we make today. I explore some of the theoretical background to FFL and then run through a detailed example using my take on the approach, 4 mini-scenarios, and reverse extrapolation (4MSRE). What really struck me in working through this example is how easy it is to become complacent about decision making in the present, underestimating the significant consequences that might occur in 10- or 20-years’ time. Every time we make a decision today that accepts, or fails to challenge the gendered status quo, potentially embed that status quo in society and in the workplace for years to come. As I write today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is preparing to announce her Spending Review; media channels have been sharing information and expectations for weeks, so there will be few surprises in her speech. She has her supporters, critics, and opponents within her own party and the opposition; a common response to what she is expected to say is ‘where will the money come from’ and ‘what will that promise actually cost.’ These are sound and sensible questions; however, the relative short-termism of many political and organisational decisions means that we become averse to risk and take the easy, rationally costed route, which in the longer term merely entrenches attitudes and approaches that no longer serve the requirements of an evolving society. Getting the right balance of risk, stability, and progress is challenging, and we need to ensure that we learn from our decisions and consider, always, the potential future consequences of what we do today. If we decide today, and within a few months make a U-turn, we can dress it up as good governance and a willingness to listen; however, the real question is whether we could have foreseen the consequences of our initial decision and made a better one. Post justification is not a real, long-term strategy.
Never accept that sexism, bias, and discrimination are just a normal part of society; they should not be. It is incumbent on every feminist to do something to dismantle the patriarchal norms that constrain us and prevent gender equality. Be the best feminist role model you can be, and remember that every action starts with a thought, an idea, a conversation, and the conviction that together we can effect change.
Karen’s book can be purchased from Emerald’s bookstore. The book has been published as part of the Women, Economy, and Labour Relations book series. Check all titles here.