Diversity and Inclusion Leadership

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time. 

Entry level: 52% men & 47% women Senior manager level: 64% men & 36% women Senior VP level: 73% men & 28% women Did you see what happened? The number of women in a company immediately drops at the second and third career levels. And this needs attention. The McKinsey & Company and Lean In, Women In Workplace 2023 report highlights the clear bias that is the barrier to women’s entry into leadership. Zoe Chance said it best, “Women feel forced to compete on their record, whilst men can compete on their vision.” ↳ Men apply for a job when they meet only 60% of the qualifications, but women apply only if they meet 100% of them. ↳ A study at a large retail chain in North America (published in Yale) highlights that women are 14% less likely to be promoted at the company each year because they are consistently judged as having lower leadership potential than men. ↳ BBC reports that women are held to higher standards for promotions than men. If this isn’t absolutely appalling, I don’t know what this is. I’ve seen male colleagues bag projects without any experience and female colleagues with much much more experience were asked to explain their rationale. I’ve heard stories of managers pushing women to share reports with male colleagues so they can keep an eye out for red flags. Step 1 is to recognize this internal bias. Our systems are deeply flawed and unless we pinpoint what we’re doing wrong, we can never get close to fixing it. I recommend every leader to run an internal diagnostics on day-to-day bias. The story needs to change. #womenintech #womeninbusiness #womenleaders

🥊 “Jingjin, have you ever considered that women are just inferior to men?” That was her opening line. The lady who challenged me was not a traditionalist in pearls. She was one of the top investment bankers of her time, closed billion-dollar deals, led global teams, the kind of woman whose voice dropped ten degrees when money was on the line. And she meant it. “Back in my day, if I had to hire, I’d always go for the man. No pregnancy leave. No PMS. No emotional volatility. Just less… liability.” And she doesn’t believe in what I do. Helping women lead from a place of wholeness. Because to her, wholeness is a luxury. Winning requires neutrality. And neutrality means: be less female and suck it up! I’ve heard versions of this many times, and too often, from high-performing women who "made it" by suppressing. But facts are: 🧠 There are no consistent brain differences between men and women that explain men’s “logic” or women’s “emotions.” 💥 Hormones impact everyone. Men’s testosterone drops when they nurture. Women’s cortisol rises in toxic workplaces, not because they’re weak, but because they’re sane. 📉 What we call “meritocracy” is often a reward system for those who can perform like they have no body, no children, no cycles. None of those are biologically male traits. They’re artifacts of a system built around male lives. So, if you're a woman who's bought into this logic, here are some counter-strategies: 🛠 1. Study Systems Like You Studied Deals Dissect the incentives, norms, and bias loops of your workplace the same way you’d break down a P&L. Don’t internalize what’s structural. 🧭 2. Redefine Strategic Strengths Stop mirroring alpha aggression to prove you belong. Deep listening, self-regulation, and nuance reading, these are leadership assets, not soft skills. Use them ruthlessly. 💬 3. Name It, Don’t Numb It If your hormones impact you one day a month, say so, but also say what it doesn’t mean: It doesn’t cancel out 29 days of clarity, strategy, and execution. 🪩 4. Build Your Own Meritocracy Start investing in spaces, networks, and cultures where your wholeness isn’t penalized. If none exist, build them. 🧱 5. Deconstruct Before You Self-Doubt When you catch yourself thinking “maybe I’m not built for this,” pause. Ask: Whose rules am I trying to win by? Who benefits when I question myself? This post isn’t about defending women. We don’t need defending. It’s about calling out the internalised metrics we still use to measure ourselves. 👊 And choosing to rewrite them. What’s the most 'rational' reason you’ve heard for why women are a liability?

Six women headed to space yesterday in what Blue Origin is calling a historic all-female crew. But as a woman who's navigated male-dominated spaces throughout my career, I'm deeply conflicted about what this moment represents. The symbolism of the world's first "glam" space crew: The crew includes Lauren Sánchez (Bezos's fiancée), Katy Perry, Gayle King, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, producer Kerianne Flynn, and former NASA scientist Aisha Bowe. It's a diverse group of accomplished women, which in itself feels significant. Yet I can't stop thinking about Katy Perry's words: "Space is going to finally be glam. Let me tell you something. If I could take glam up with me, I would do that. We are going to put the 'ass' in astronaut." This framing raises complex questions about representation: 1. The mixed message problem: When Elle magazine proudly notes this will be "the first time anyone has been to space with their hair and makeup done," are we celebrating women's access to space or reducing their presence there to appearance? 2. The "exceptional woman" paradox: While highlighting accomplished women is important, does the celebrity focus perpetuate the idea that women need to be exceptional to earn their place in traditionally male domains? 3. The coded language concern: Would we ever describe an all-male crew as "putting the 'ass' in astronaut"? Does this language reinforce the idea that women's achievements must be packaged with femininity to be palatable? What genuine progress might look like: True representation isn't just about having women present—it's about changing the fundamental structures that have limited women's access. The first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, flew solo in 1963. Six decades later, should we be celebrating that women can now access space with their "hair and makeup done," or should we be asking why women remain severely underrepresented in aerospace engineering, astrophysics, and astronautics? The questions I'm wrestling with: → Is this reinforcing stereotypes while appearing to break them? The focus on glamour and appearance sends mixed messages about what female achievement looks like and what we should celebrate. → Does representation matter even when packaged in problematic framing? Perhaps getting more girls and women interested in space through any means is progress—even if the messaging is imperfect. → When women enter male-dominated spaces, must they choose between being "one of the boys" or leaning into hyper-feminine presentation? Is there room for authentic self-expression? → Is this moment a genuine step forward for women in space, or primarily a calculated distraction in the billionaire space race that co-opts feminist language for commercial gain? What do you think? Share your perspective below 👇 Photo: Blue Origin ♻️ Found this helpful? Repost to share with your network.  ⚡ Want more content like this? Hit follow Maya Moufarek.

The article discusses the phenomenon known as the "glass cliff," where Black women are often hired or promoted to leadership roles during times of crisis, with the expectation that they will resolve issues with little to no resources. This can lead to burnout or failure due to their overwhelming challenges. The article cites examples of Black women who were placed in such positions, including Dana Canedy, Simone Oliver, and Yogananda Pittman. Despite the push for diversity and inclusion initiatives, Black women in leadership often lack adequate support and resources, leading to frustration and departure from their jobs. The article emphasizes the need for companies to provide equal pay, mental health resources, professional development, mentorship, and genuine commitment to supporting the success of Black women in leadership positions. #diversityequityinclusion #corporatecitizenship #blackwomenintech #blackwomenlead #corporateamerica #dei #leadershipmatters https://lnkd.in/g3KHcxXi

I've been getting loads of questions about the "DEI Hire" digs aimed at Vice President Kamala Harris. Much has already been said, so I'll just leave this here. As a seasoned human capital and DEI executive of color, I'm no stranger to these lazy, loaded comments. They represent the hypocrisy of our times - just another assignment to dismiss and discredit the undeniable talent, credentials, expertise, and leadership resilience of over-excelling despite relentless hurdles. But they still sting. Our indignation? Duly recorded. Our rage? Articulated. What’s our assignment? I choose truth, action, hope and joy. When I'm feeling wobbly and tempted to clap back at these tired attacks, I lean on what I know: - Back when I was a newbie DEI practitioner, a senior leader of color asked how I'd handle white leaders questioning my strategies for diversifying leadership ranks. I remember the pause and the knowing look we shared. I replied, "I sit in meetings where no one bats an eye at a white guy pushing for a product or ad campaign that ignores or offends lucrative diverse customer bases, without a shred of data, or hiring his underqualified buddy from his alma mater. So, I have no qualms about advocating for what's best for our business and society." - As an HR exec, I've witnessed exceptional, highly qualified women, especially women of color, repeatedly bypassed for executive roles by white men with thinner resumes but tighter leadership connections. And when those men fail or, worse, bail on their teams, these women are called in to clean up the mess and bear the weight of chaos. - And that "hiring bar" some people are so keen to defend? It's more like a limbo stick, shifting to the tune of "I like you, I don't like you," driven by deep-seated biases and fears. I've been in the room making hiring and promotion decisions, championing choices based on leadership versatility tied to business needs, sometimes leaning on potential and resilience for those with limited opportunities, and being beaten into submission to make the wrong ones. Been there, done that. I'm preserving my energy for the assignment ahead because truly diverse, inclusive, high-performing workplaces and societies need ALL of us! It's time to maximize the roles we want to play at work, home, and our communities, and figure out how to stay energized for the long haul. What does that look like? Take a breath, know and embody your worth, respond to what needs responding (pro tip: you don't have to react to everything), find the best ways to make an impact, and collaborate powerfully. Do you have any other tips to recharge, reset and dodge burnout in these wild times? #leadership #diversityequityandinclusion #management #burnout

Recommended reading! She RISES: a framework for caring cities Cities often mirror the inequalities embedded in society. She RISES: A Framework for Caring Cities, developed by surabhi tandon mehrotra, Kalpana Viswanath, Ankita Kapoor and Rwitee Mandal from Safetipin, brings this imbalance into sharp focus. It exposes how urban design and governance frequently overlook the gendered dimensions of city life, especially the invisible role of care work in sustaining urban systems. The framework is built around four core principles: Responsive, Inclusive, Safe and Equitable Spaces. Together they form an integrated approach to gender transformation through four streams of action. The first stream focuses on public spaces and infrastructure. Well-lit streets, obstacle-free pavements, safe public toilets and mixed-use neighbourhoods are presented as essential design features that enable women’s participation in urban life. The second stream addresses services and amenities, highlighting the need for childcare facilities, housing for single women, and access to affordable health care. Recognising and redistributing care work across communities, markets and the state is seen as a cornerstone of an equitable city. The third stream targets mobility and public transport. Women’s complex travel patterns, shaped by care duties and multiple destinations, require safe, affordable and well-connected systems. Gender-disaggregated data and inclusive recruitment policies in the transport sector are proposed as practical tools for change. The fourth stream concerns responses to gender-based violence, emphasising the implementation of existing laws, the establishment of crisis hubs, and public campaigns that reshape social attitudes. The She RISES framework is both analytical and operational. It is intended for planners, policy makers and urban managers who aim to embed gender sensitivity into every layer of urban governance. The report also serves as a reminder that the care economy is not peripheral but foundational to the functioning of cities. Safetipin, the social enterprise behind this work, has been collecting and analysing safety data in more than forty-five cities across Asia, Africa and Latin America. Their evidence confirms that cities designed with care in mind not only improve safety for women but also strengthen social cohesion and economic resilience for all. #GenderEquality #UrbanDevelopment #InclusiveCities #UrbanPlanning #PublicSpace #CaringCities

The glass cliff phenomenon is a harmful, and real form of gender bias holding women back as leaders. It is backed by academic research: 1. Researchers at the University of Exeter found that women are more likely to be appointed as CEOs in companies that have performed poorly in the past, compared to men. 2. Columbia Business School found that women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions in companies that are in crisis, compared to men. The study also found that women are less likely to be appointed to leadership positions in companies that are performing well. 3. McKinsey & Company consistently finds that women are underrepresented in leadership positions across industries, with only 38% of manager-level positions being held by women. When women are seen as the right choice to clean up a mess, but not to lead when times are good, it is bad for all humans. #womenshistorymonth #allyship #leadership

It took 67 years for Indian girls to write the NDA exam. Not because they weren’t capable, but because they weren't allowed. It took a Supreme Court order in 2021 to change that. This May, 17 women cadets graduated from the National Defence Academy - the first ever in Indian history. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said it plainly in court - Since 1954, the NDA had been a space reserved only for men. Women could join the armed forces, but only through other academies - routes that were longer, and often came with fewer opportunities to lead. Because NDA wasn’t just any academy but a fast track to command. So when these 17 women finally passed out alongside 300 male cadets, it wasn’t just a batch of officers marching out but a system stepping forward. They trained and endured the same and emerged not as exceptions but equals. This is why when they marched past the ‘Antim Pag’ at Khadakwasla, it wasn’t just ceremonial but deeply symbolic. A reminder that leadership isn’t defined by gender. To every girl who’s ever been told she’s too soft, too ambitious, too emotional for command - these 17 women just answered with a salute. They didn’t just open the gates but widened the path for many more to walk through.

Last week, I facilitated a discussion at Columbia University for their Women’s Leadership Network and one of the readings I assigned the participants was about the glass cliff and now one week later we have a real-world example of the glass cliff playing out. The glass cliff is the phenomenon that occurs when women (often from racially and ethnically marginalized backgrounds) are able to ascend to leadership positions when the corporation is in turmoil. Many women are tapped to stepped in when a company is mired in controversy. What is happening right now at #Boeing is the perfect example of this. Why are they now elevating longtime female exec (Stephanie Pope) as their new CEO at a time when they are making headlines for all their issues and controversy? 🤔🧐 When the women that are elevated into these leadership positions inevitably fail, people use this as proof of their incapability and incompetence + further evidence of why #DEI “doesn’t work.” We need to recognize this corporate trap and call it out whenever we see it happening because it harms us all. Don’t hire us when your company is in trouble. Allow us to lead and trust us to lead when the company is prosperous and watch how we magnify your organization to new heights. #WomensHistoryMonth