 |
|
|
|||||
What really holds people back from stepping up as allies in support of their marginalized colleagues? For example, why dont more men say something when they see a colleague or a customer make a sexist remark about a female co-worker? Our research, published in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, suggests that people often hesitate to intervene when co-workers are mistreated because they themselves feel disempowered in their organizations and experience distrust and polarization. Our findings run counter to the common assumption that people dont step up to support marginalized colleagues because they dont care or are unmotivated. Not seeing much action against inequity and injustice can drive this cynical idea. Its built into many diversity, equity and inclusion training programs that rely on motivational tactics of persuasion, guilting and shaming to get people to act. We are psychology researchers interested in how people can use their strengths to effectively support others who are marginalized. We surveyed 778 employees in Michigan and 973 employees across all provinces of Canada, representative of urban and rural areas, working-class and professional jobs, and across all demographics, including gender, race, and sexual orientation. We asked them, What makes it hard for you to be an ally for underrepresented and marginalized people (e.g., people of color, women, persons with a disability) in your organization? Low motivation represented just 8% of the barriers people cited. And lack of awareness that marginalized groups face inequities accounted for only 10% of the barriers people mentioned. Most diversity training money tends to be devoted to teaching employees about these topicssuggesting why many diversity training programs fail. The most common barrier to allyship that our participants named was distrust and tension between people in their organization, which had them second-guessing themselves and self-censoring. People also reported feeling disempowered, like they didnt have the power, opportunity or resources to make a real difference for their colleagues. Why it matters Researchers, specialists and consultants alike approach issues of workplace inequity with the assumption that to drive action, they need to first unblock potential allies deep-seated resistance to change. For example, specialists assume that people need to become more motivated, more courageous, less biased or better informed about existing inequities in order to act as allies. In this study, we temporarily set aside all preexisting assumptions and directly asked people what made it hard for them to be an ally, in their own words. Our goal was to identify practical roadblocks at the top of peoples minds that stop them from taking the first step, or the next logical step. When popular messaging, like on social media, and organizational interventions misunderstand the causes of peoples inaction, they risk exacerbating frustration and tensions. Interventions need to account for their audiences true perspectives on what makes allyship difficult. Otherwise, theyll lack credibility, and people will likely be less receptive to program content. What still isnt known Wed like to further investigate the impacts of the specific barriers mentioned in our study. More insight could help workplaces focus interventions on addressing barriers that are the worst pressure points and avoid overspending on interventions that can move the needle only so much. More than a quarter of respondents said they experienced no barriers to standing up for colleagues. Wed like to investigate whether these respondents simply didnt want to engage with our question, are uncertain about the barriers, or are already engaging in some form of allyship. Our teams previous research has shown that even loud allies who publicly call out bias often also engage in quiet allyship actions, such as privately checking in on how a victim of bias is doing and assisting in strategizing next steps. Whats next Our research team is investigating whether programs designed with this studys findings in mindstarting with building trusting relationships and helping people feel empoweredcan increase allyship action. When diversity programs built on inaccurate assumptions dont show the desired results, they risk having funding withdrawn or being halted altogether. Instead, as organizations take stock and pivot, evidence from our study and others can help them more effectively plan their next move. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Meg A. Warren is a professor of management at Western Washington University. Michael T. Warren is an assistant professor of psychology at Western Washington University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
If youre a manager today, your job may well be changing. That is, if it hasnt already. As companies continue to compress their org charts and axe layers of middle management, a new role is emerging: the supermanager. Leaders are finding themselves responsible for significantly more direct reports and broader responsibilities. And in many industries, the trend shows no sign of slowing. A Gallup survey published in January, citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found that the average number of reports managers have increased from 10.9 in 2024 to 12.1 in 2025. The share of managers overseeing 25 or more employees has also grown in the past year, with 13% now supervising teams that large. This long-term increase in managerial span of control has been described as part of the Great Flattening. It is being driven by several forces, including leadership churn, layoffs targeting middle management layers, and the AI boom, and organizations increasingly see fewer reasons to maintain multiple management layers. Some workplace experts argue the shift is overdue, pointing to years of bloated management structures. Others warn the trend is backfiring, leaving employees lost in the noise and saddled with unrealistic demands. Either way, the supermanager is becoming commonplace across countless industries. When bigger teams lead to burnout and turnover The role is changing, Jennifer Dulski, the CEO and founder of the AI-assisted team performance platform Rising Team, tells Fast Company. Every manager can now become a supermanager. Michele Herlein, a former senior HR leader turned leadership expert who holds a doctorate in business administration, tells Fast Company that slimming down an organization can have immediate benefits, like reducing costs, and speeding up decision-making. But when organizations increase spans of control without redesigning the role itself, the consequences ripple quickly. When people are reactive instead of proactiveputting out fires instead of preventing themchaos follows, Herlein says. When one megamanager is burnt out, the entire department feels it. Leena Rinne, vice president of leadership, business, and coaching at Skillsoft, tells Fast Company that companies are effectively creating a new leadership role without acknowledging it. If you’re going to have a flat organization and a lot of direct reports, you better be thinking about what the skills are that that leader needs and equipping them with those skills, Rinne says. She believes the supermanager era can workbut most organizations are skipping that step, she says. Rinne experienced the shift firsthand, managing 80 direct reports in one previous role. It was very different from managing eight: She needed absolute clarity on her vision and strategy rather than filling her time with individual one-on-one meetings. The problem, she argues, is that many organizations are flattening their structures, but not evolving how they support managers. Organizations think, oh, if we just put more pressure on them, they’ll figure out how to do it more effectively, she says. Then they don’t give them the training, the tools, the skills, the clarity, the visionall of these things that should come from higher levels of leadership. The model isnt necessarily brokenbut the support often is Dulski, who previously held leadership roles at Yahoo, Google, and Facebook, agrees that the supermanager era can work if companies rethink what management is for. Before the flattening, she argues, many managers oversaw too few people. My personal view is that five to seven has been the right zone, she says. And with the right tools, we can probably get to 10 or 12 fairly easily. But the benefits arent automatic. To make it work, supermanagers should spend less time on administrative tasks and more time on what Dulski calls the two Cs: clarity and compassion. That means prioritizing fewer, clearer goals and using systems to replace constant supervision and micromanagement, which some have relied on to climb the traditional career ladder. Great managers are like great sports coachesthey show clearly what winning looks like, have everybody clear on what their role is, and then they step back, she says. Managers are not doing a good job when you put very little support into helping them understand their role and training them to be good at it. AI can help with this, but technology alone wont solve everything, Dulski warns. Its counterintuitive to a lot of people, Dulski says, but the success of future managers and leaders lives at the intersection of deep human connection and AIone without the other will no longer be enough. When a supermanager hasnt been given the time and resources to develop those skills, burnout follows. Gallup data has already shown that the workforce is disengaged, so piling additional responsibilities on top of people and expecting them to simply deal with it is only going to compound the problem. As Rinne says: You cant flatten your way to growth. How to survive and succeed as a supermanager The Great Flattening is likely to continue, fueled by hybrid working, cost pressures, faster decision cycles, and the reduced need for oversight enabled by AI tools. It looks like supermanagers are becoming the norm as a result, so those suddenly thrust into this role should try to make it work, but only if their organization is implementing the model thoughtfully and intentionally, rather than out of panic. The supermanager era will be defined about leading differently, with clear goals, transparent communication, and leadership development to make it a sustainable one, experts say. I think most organizations don’t invest in their leaders enough, period, Rinne says. Herlein agrees, adding that a lot of supermanagers are stuck on a hamster wheel, not advancing, because theyre running on fumes. It’s not that the model is broken, Herlein says. They just can’t do it without the broader organizational support and resourcesthey cant do it alone. Thriving as a supermanager means distinguishing between the two paths ahead: embrace this new way of leading, or recognize when the environment isnt sustainable, and jump ship.
Category:
E-Commerce
Do women board members make a company more innovative or risk-averse? The answer is both, according to our recent study. It all depends on how the company performs relative to its goals. Professors Małgorzata Smulowitz, Didier Cossin and I examined 524 S&P 1500 companies from 1999 to 2016, measuring innovation through patent activity. Patents reflect both creative output and risk-taking. They require significant investment in novel ideas that might fail, disclosure of proprietary information and substantial legal costs. In short, patents represent genuine bets on the future. Our findings revealed a striking pattern. When companies performed poorly in relation to their goals, they produced fewer patents after more women joined their boards. However, companies exceeding their performance targets saw increased patent output as their number of women directors grew. Similarly, when companies were financially flush, there were more patents generated when their boards had more women. The situation changed when we examined radical innovations, those patents in the top 10% of citations. For these high-risk, high-reward innovations, the risk-averse effect of women board members dominated. When a companys performance fell below aspirations, there were fewer radical innovations as its board gained female members. We found no corresponding increase in radical innovations when performance exceeded goals. One finding surprised us. We predicted that boards with more women would reduce innovation when companies approached bankruptcy. Instead, it was the opposite: Boards with more women actually increased patent output as bankruptcy loomed. This suggests that women directors may fight harder for a companys survival through innovation when facing existential threats. Why it matters Between 2000 and 2024, the number of women on S&P 500 boards increased from 27% to 34%. But previous research has painted conflicting pictures on the effect that women board members may have. Some studies showed that women reduce corporate risk-taking, while others demonstrated they increase innovation and creativity. Our work suggests both perspectives are correct under different circumstances. For companies and regulators pushing for greater board gender diversity, this research provides practical guidance. Companies performing well can expect increased innovation by adding women to their boards. These directors can bring diverse perspectives, improved decision-making and better resource allocation that translate into more patents. Conversely, poorly performing companies can expect boards with more women to focus on stability over risky innovation. This isnt necessarily negative. Research shows that banks led by women were less likely to fail during the financial crisis, and companies with more women directors experience less financial distress. Reduced innovation during tough times may reflect prudent risk management rather than risk aversion. Traditional theories predict that poor performance triggers risky searches for solutions. But boards with more women appear to prioritize organizational survival over uncertain innovation when performance suffers. They may assess that failed innovation attempts could worsen an already precarious situation. This research also speaks to the glass cliff phenomenon, where women often join boards during crisis periods. Our findings suggest these directors may bring exactly what struggling companies need: careful risk assessment and focus on survival rather than potentially wasteful innovation spending. What still isnt known We measured innovation through patents, but many innovations never become patents. How women directors affect other forms of innovationsuch as copyrights, trade secrets and first-mover advantageremains unclear. What are the mechanisms driving the differences? Do women directors actively advocate for different innovation strategies? Do they change board discussion dynamics? Do they influence CEO and management team decisions indirectly? Future research needs to open the black box of boardroom decision-making. Finally, the long-term consequences need examination. We measured patent output, but not whether the patents translated into commercial success or competitive advantage. Understanding whether the innovation patterns we documented ultimately benefit company performance would provide crucial insights for decision-makers. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Stephen J. Smulowitz is an assistant professor of strategic management at Wake Forest University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||