The reality of gender inequality is too visible to be wished away in the society at large. From missing girl children in China and India to gross discrimination against them while they are growing up in terms of education and nutrition, and honour killings when they are of marriageable age. However, we tend to believe that these ills of society persist because of illiteracy and narrow world views. Surely, most educated people do not discriminate. All urban public schools (and increasingly even in semi-urban and rural) seem to be teeming with as many girls as boys. The number of girls in engineering colleges has been going up steadily and they now account for more than 30 per cent of fresh chartered accountants. They are also entering the workforce like never before and many of them – Chanda Kocchar and Indra Nooyi, for instance - are shakers and movers of the corporate world. It is not uncommon for many males to have worked under women bosses, especially in the services sector. I have personally worked with four men and an equal number of women managers. In politics, some of the most powerful individuals over the past 50 years have been women, including Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi, Mamata Banerjee, and Jayalalitha are currently shaping India’s politics. Surely, the gender bias diminishes as one moves up the social, economic, or corporate ladder. But does it?

The other side to the story is that women account for just about 2.2 per cent of the Fortune 500 CEOs. In Europe, where women account for a third of management jobs, they constitute an even smaller slice of the top position – 1.8 per cent

The other side to the story is that women account for just about 2.2 per cent of the Fortune 500 CEOs. In Europe, where women account for a third of management jobs, they constitute an even smaller slice of the top position – 1.8 per cent. And this, despite the obvious types of discrimination now nearly extinct. In India’s CEO Forum, they account for about 5 per cent. The celebrated women CEOs are so well known, precisely because there are so few of them. Men, who constitute the other 95 per cent are in an overwhelming majority, even though most of them may not be household names. The mystery of missing women in leadership positions is strange indeed. There are many reasons for this and this issue’s cover story looks at one dimension of this – the paucity of women CFOs in corporate India. The article based on those who did make it provide insights on what prevents women from rising to the top and how they beat the odds.

However, the issue of gender’s impact on leadership is stranger still. A recent working paper by the faculty of INSEAD, a management school, titled 'Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women's leadership programs’ outlines the leadership challenges that women face, which are very distinct from those faced by their men colleagues. The odds are actually greater than they appear and biases are more structural and entrenched than meet the eye. The authors call the roadblocks the ‘second generation’ biases. These are ‘powerful yet often invisible barriers to women’s advancements that arise from cultural beliefs about gender, as well as workplace structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that inadvertently favour men’ say the authors of the paper. So, what are these invisible landmines?

The prevailing beliefs, practices and structures support both of these phenomena among males and inhibit them among women. Cultural beliefs about what it means to be a leader are very closely aligned with what males are expected to be – decisive, assertive, and independent. Women, by contrast are seen as friendly, care-taking, and unselfish, all positive qualities, but not aligned with what it means to be a leader. This puts women in a double-bind. Those in positions of power are seen either as too aggressive or not aggressive enough. What appears as self-confident and entrepreneurial in men appears abrasive and self-promoting among women, say the authors. They add that when women succeed in traditionally male-dominated roles, they are respected but liked less; and when they conform to feminine stereotypes, they are liked, but not respected. They are seen as too soft and not assertive enough. They seem to need to choose between being liked or respected, whereas men can have the best of both worlds!

Further, a lack of role models tends to inhibit an increase in the number of role models. People learn new roles by identifying with role models, and experimenting with provisional identities, and comparing the results with internal standards and external feedback. Women have fewer role models they can identify with and whose styles are congruent with their ‘concept of self. Further, they tend to have lesser margin for errors which further inhibits experimentation. Therefore, women rely more on what has worked for them in the past, whereas men tend to imitate role models and ‘assume’ behavioural patterns that may be unnatural, but work. While women are feeling their way around, relying on their past experience, men are quickly rising up the corporate ladder.

Cultural beliefs about what it means to be a leader are very closely aligned with what males are expected to be – decisive, assertive, and independent

Further, the path to the top is assumed to pass through some roles that are typically male dominated, such as sales and operations. These assumptions may no more be valid, but continue to linger and silently discriminate against women. Also, assignments that are considered important for career enhancements, such as foreign postings, are usually offered to males because it is assumed that their spouses will come along. Further, companies value heroic and visible achievements, such as busting strikes or building dams, to silent and behind-the-scenes ones, such as consensus building which also tend to favour males.

None of these biases are obvious, overt or deliberate. They are not even visible. However, they are so much a part of the fabric it is hard to even see them in the pattern of behaviours and norms. For this reason they are also very difficult to address. Collectively, they load the dice against women and account for the fact that despite storming into the workforce decades ago, women have not made it to the top. Changing these will require a total re-think of not just the organisational practices, but a complete overhaul of the set patterns of thinking.