“What if gender mattered less? Pigs might actually fly before that happens,” said Dr. Mikki Hebl at the Shaken & Stirred event at the 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conference (I-O Shaken & Stirred, 2017). If gender mattered less, “SIOP itself would see differences. Women comprised only six out of the 21 SIOP fellows this year, and five of the 25 major award recipients yesterday . . . were women.” With that, she dropped the microphone and walked off the stage. This video has been viewed on YouTube more than twice as many times as most of the other Shaken & Stirred videos that are available, and it is this boldness that is needed in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology if we expect to see changes.
Although we agree with the spirit of the focal article by Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018), we argue that the manner in which the focal article discusses the issue of gender parityFootnote 1 within I-O psychology poses a disservice to the field. We discuss these problems in the sections that follow.
Gender Disparity Within I-O Should Come as No Surprise
First, we argue that although I-O psychology as a field may not have previously examined gender parity within the discipline, I-O psychologists have been empirically documenting gender disparities in other organizations for decades. In fact, the earliest research in our field assumed that women were inferior to men and sought to empirically document this assumption (Colella, Hebl, & King, Reference Colella, Hebl and King2017). The tone and positioning of the focal article suggests gender disparities may exist, which also implies that they may not. This exploratory orientation is not aligned with the data that have been accumulated to date. A short list of the significant revelations that can be attributed to I-O psychologists includes the knowledge that women are not thought to be aligned with “ideal leader” stereotypes (Schein, Reference Schein1973, Reference Schein1975); are assumed to not be leaders even when objectively identified as such (Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez, Avery, Tonidandel, Hebl, Smith and McKay2016); and are penalized for being agentic (Rudman & Glick, Reference Rudman and Glick1999), for being communal (Madera, Hebl, & Martin, Reference Madera, Hebl and Martin2009), for not being physically attractive (Hosada, Stone-Romero, & Coats, Reference Hosoda, Stone-Romero and Coats2003), for becoming pregnant (Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary, & Kazama, Reference Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary and Kazama2007; Sabat, Lindsey, King, & Jones, Reference Sabat, Lindsey, King, Jones, Spitzmueller and Matthews2016), and for being mothers (Heilman & Okimoto, Reference Heilman and Okimoto2008; Jones, Botsford-Morgan, Walker, & King, Reference Jones, Morgan, Walker, King and Paludi2013). Given the collective body of knowledge, we assert that it is too late to initiate a conversation about the gender disparities in our field. Instead, like our earliest predecessors, it seems reasonable to assume that these gender disparities exist and, in addition to documenting their loci and magnitudes, to examine our own perpetuation—or remediation—of such disparities.
What Is Said in the Silence
Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) suggest the lack of research on gender disparities in I-O “may signal lack of interest” (p. 370). Within just the past few years, discrimination and harassment experienced by women in the workplace have made headlines (e.g., #metoo, the Google memo, and Gamergate). In the Women's March, an estimated 3.2 million people across the country participated in the largest single-day protest in U.S. history, advocating for women's rights (and other disenfranchised groups) and against sexist, demeaning, and predatory statements made by the then-recently elected president. Given that approximately half the SIOP membership are women, we are skeptical that many of them are not similarly invested in these issues. The inception of the SIOP Women's Inclusion Network is a good example of the interest being paid to these issues now.
Gardner et al.’s (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) suggestion that silence on gender disparities in I-O may be due to an “inability to voice” is worth examining in depth. When the authors coded the gender of authors in the last five volumes of the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), they found, unsurprisingly, that the statistics favored men; 65% of first authors were men and 35% were women. A few paragraphs earlier, the authors note that JAP, in its 100-year history, has never had a female editor. These signposts beg examination of the association between these two statements. In a recent commentary, King, Avery, Hebl, and Cortina (Reference King, Avery, Hebl and Cortina2017) observed that our presumed “objective” review process can be fallible to the same unconscious biases that are indicative and/or a cause of the broader societal disparities outside of the review process. Of over 7,800 papers submitted to the Journal of Management over the past 7 years, those that examined diversity-related topics were held to a higher standard of quality and less likely to be published. Perhaps, the authors suggested, reviewers’ just-world ideologies as members of the privileged group (White men) are threatened by findings that minority groups are unfairly disadvantaged and respond to these threats with hypercriticism. Relatedly, Trump-Steele, Nittrouer, and Hebl (Reference Trump-Steele, Nittrouer and Hebl2016) found that men responded more negatively when they believed that the author of an article on gender equity was a woman. From here, it is reasonable to assert, with confidence, that publication outcomes will be more favorable toward women (and very likely other populations underrepresented in I-O) when women serve as editors. Dr. Belle Rose Ragins’ tenure as associate editor at the Academy of Management Review (AMR) provides an illustrative case study. As editor, she shepherded a special issue devoted to the changing global landscape of diversity research to increase its relevance and applicability. JAP should emulate AMR and conduct a similar “experiment.” As JAP is one of our flagship publications, we should expect to see women at its helm.
We now consider Gardner et al.’s (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) suggestion that silence may signal an “unwillingness” to address the topic of gender disparity. Our field is and has been dominated by men. Broadly, it is easy for those in power to be willfully ignorant to their accumulated cultural privilege and to cite a decreasing wage gap and increasing percentage of women in positions of power as evidence of a postfeminist era. Initiating change inevitably falls to the persecuted minority, but women are not heard when they speak (Butler & Geis, Reference Butler and Geis1990), women are not published as frequently (West, Jacquet, King, Correll, & Bergstrom, Reference West, Jacquet, King, Correll and Bergstrom2013), and women are penalized for confronting sexist behaviors (Becker, Glick, Ilic, & Bohner, Reference Becker, Glick, Ilic and Bohner2011). Although SIOP 2018 marks only the first meeting of the Women's Inclusion Network, we have no doubt that many of the women (and allies) in our field have been shouting to be heard. SIOP should be an environment that does not stifle gender parity, and individuals with power should be willing to talk about it.
We Should Speak Confidently, Scientifically, and Unapologetically
We have no doubt that our field is being criticized in the focal article, but it is time to stop writing about these issues using language that undermines the power of empirical support being presented.Footnote 2 It is difficult to imagine that pages of statistics couched in deflating language that “encourage[s] subsequent commentary, research, and actionable next steps” (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018, p. 370) will prompt change. By critically examining the language and structure used in the focal article, we highlight some deferential mechanisms that are indicative of and may help perpetuate gender disparities.
To broach the conversation, the authors use a strategy that is also commonly used in academic peer reviews: the “good news/bad news” rhetorical device identified by Johnson and Roen (Reference Johnson and Roen1992). Because criticism threatens one's desire for the approval of others, peer reviews often begin with a compliment, which is the reviewer's way of establishing solidarity with the recipient (Brown & Levinson, Reference Brown and Levinson1987). The compliment generally serves one of two functions: to communicate genuine praise or to prime the reader to be more receptive of negative criticism that follows. We are unable to determine the rhetorical function of “applauding evidence of equity in our field” (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018, p. 370); however, one can reasonably draw an overall negative conclusion from the totality of the data that are presented. If the praise is genuine, we question why our field should be proud that in 1919, 17% of first authors in JAP were women (De Meuse, Reference De Meuse1987); a century later, 35% of first authors were women (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018). By comparison, from 1920–1974 women received only 6% of I-O psychology PhDs (Keita, Cameron, & Burrwell, Reference Keita, Cameron and Burrwell2016). As Gardner et al. note, in 2016, they received 61%—an increase of nearly 55%. If the compliment was designed to provide a sense of balance with the data that indicate gender disparities, then we question the necessity of using gentle language when informing scientists—who are invested in researching and improving the workplace—that there is pervasive bias and discrimination in their own field.
The authors “encourage” readers to observe a sampling of the innumerable gender inequities. Hedging is a politeness strategy used when dispensing criticism. Hedges easy to spot in the focal article are modal verbs such as “may” and “might” throughout. They are words or phrases that weaken the power of a statement by indicating that a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn (Fraser, Reference Fraser, Kaltenbock, Mihatsch and Schneider2010), and that scientists use to reassure peers that their conclusions do not extend beyond their data, thereby increasing the likelihood that peers will accept their conclusion over a more strongly worded claim (Madigan, Johnson, & Linton, Reference Madigan, Johnson and Linton1995). For example, the following statement hedges the reader's ability to rely on the validity of the entire paper:
We acknowledge up front that our review is quite cursory and our analyses merely descriptive; strong inferences regarding any potential gender inequity and its causes require richer data and more sophisticated examination. However, we feel that this overview can provide some useful information to start such examination, point to where energies might best be focused, and create an appropriate agenda for the profession in this regard. (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018, 370)
By apologizing that the data are limited, saying that the data are not reliable, and suggesting the data could be useful if we finally decide to prioritize this issue, the authors provide skeptical readers with ample justifications to discount the gender disparities they point to (yet wish to ameliorate). We advocate for letting data speak for themselves and avoiding language that undermines their power.
We Need to Remember That Stereotypes Are Pervasive and Pernicious
When we initially outlined our response, we succumbed to common stereotypes and attributed the language and style of the focal article to the gender of the authors. Although there have been few studies of gender differences in academic writing, Francis, Robson, Read, and Melling (Reference Francis, Robson, Read and Melling2003) found that history and psychology lecturers endorsed the same biases we did, believing that women are more cautious than men in their arguments and men are more likely to make bold claims (Earl-Novell, Reference Earl-Novell2001). In actuality, men and women made bold claims (and hedges) at equal rates and lecturers were unable to determine the gender of undergraduate authors when reviewing papers. The only consistent difference between men's and women's writing appears to be that women are more likely to use pronouns to create a relationship with the reader. (Interestingly, Francis and colleagues (Reference Francis, Robson, Read and Melling2003) also observed that men were more likely to make bold unfounded claims than women.) If we (who pride ourselves on being aware of and mindful to avoid using such stereotypes) fell prey to such silly attributions, others—editors, peer reviewers, and those we want to recruit to the cause of gender parity—will too, which is problematic because reviewers of diversity research often assume that the author is a minority group member (King et al., Reference King, Avery, Hebl and Cortina2017). Thus, already (unconsciously) motivated to be hypercritical of these papers, reviewers may further be (unconsciously) primed to confirm their beliefs regarding deficiencies in women's writing.
We need to examine how using the reasoned and confident yet dispassionate and detached language of academia impacts our fulfillment of SIOP's mission to “enhance human well-being and performance in organizational and work settings.” Many of us were drawn to I-O psychology because of its potential for affecting change, yet it is impossible to improve the well-being of our employees and organizations dispassionately. Too often, the language of academia prohibits our stating the obvious and from calling out harmful behaviors and systems. It would be foolish to believe that potential change agents will be motivated to improve the well-being of our employees and organizations if our language intimates that injustice may or may not exist. We are asked to belie that our studies are informed by inequities we and the individuals that make up our populations witness and endure. Instead, we must assert that only the data have import. Emotion is antonymic to rationality (and considered the purview of women and femininity), but we propose that it empowers us to be bolder when speaking and writing about barriers to equity and promoting science that adequately represents and remediates injustices.
Bold perspectives, questions, and solutions emerge when we write with the expectation of parity in the representation of all identity groups, including women. Further, we are more likely to avoid asking difference-as-deficit research questions that place the burden of remediating these differences on women. For instance, in addition to or in lieu of asking, “Why do women earn less than men?” we can just as easily ask, “Why do managers and hiring executives choose to pay women less than men?” This simple reframing forces those in power to assume responsibility for their role in perpetuating systematic inequity by examining decision practices that rely on unfounded stereotypes, reward toxic masculine behaviors, create hostile environments, and penalize equally rewarding and essential human activities, such as having a family.
Bold Remediation Strategies to Create Parity
We concur with Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) that more data should be collected. In addition to their suggestions, we propose that SIOP create a process to report gender parity issues by surveying members regarding diversity climates and outcomes. This would enable us to develop a clearer understanding of how diversity is impacting our field, in line with research that shows that diversity initiatives are most successful when supported by formal organizational structures (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, Reference Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly2006). Perhaps the Women's Inclusion Network, the Committee on Ethnic Minorities Affairs, and LGBT committees could coordinate and adopt such a task. Considering recent research that highlights the importance of allies in workplace contexts (Martinez, Hebl, Smith, & Sabat, Reference Martinez, Hebl, Smith and Sabat2017; Sabat, Martinez, & Wessel, Reference Sabat, Martinez and Wessel2013), we would hope that this effort would be supported by engaged allies. The third author was disappointed by how few male allies attended the Women's Inclusion Network meeting at the 2017 SIOP conference and noted that none of these were straight men. We eagerly anticipate the upcoming SIOP symposia on allyship.
All awards committees and SIOP-sponsored publication boards should have demographic representation that mirrors that of the SIOP membership (in line with relational demography theories of diversity, e.g., Cox, Reference Cox1994), and given the lack of research on the topic of gender parity issues in our field, TIP should devote at least one article to this topic each issue. Fellowship status conferrals should be equally divided between men and women, and we would actually suggest that conferrals be granted solely to women for the next several years (in line with principles associated with affirmative action policies), as we cannot believe that the span of 18 years between the initiation of the SIOP fellowship program (in 1964) and a woman being first recognized (1982; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) was due to actual deficits in deservingness.
Our field must push for bias reduction in publication processes, and we support and expand upon the recommendations of King and colleagues (Reference King, Avery, Hebl and Cortina2017) in their recent commentary, including diversifying editorial boards with respect to demographic representation and methodological/philosophical orientations (e.g., qualitative methods, feminist/queer theory), providing training in equitable and fair review practices, and incentivizing reviewers to follow these practices.
Academic institutions need to increase the transparency of their selection, promotion, and tenure criteria and be mindful of data that show disadvantages for women in letters of recommendation (Madera, Hebl, & Martin, Reference Madera, Hebl and Martin2009), teaching evaluations (MacNeil, Driscoll, & Hunt, Reference MacNell, Driscoll and Hunt2015), and service expectations (Bell & Gordon, Reference Bell and Gordon1999). It is imperative that we follow our own recommendations that we typically include in the “Practical Recommendations” sections of our papers. Not doing so undermines the research that is being conducted and delegitimizes SIOP to outsiders (and especially insiders) who recognize a disconnect between our recommendations and our practices, in line with justice violation research.
Future Generations Are Taking Note and Responding
The pigs heralding gender equity will not be flying any time soon. The first two authors are attending SIOP this year for the first time. As newcomers to I-O psychology, we notice that because gender has been researched for some time, we feel pressure to examine other topics that are considered more novel. Although we already know discrimination on the basis of gender is a problem, we assert that research in this area is still noteworthy, if not crucial to our headway moving forward, and are frustrated that more has not been done despite our knowledge in this field. Although we are excited to see that there are 80 presentations classified as “inclusion/diversity” at this year's SIOP conference, we have simultaneously noticed that two-thirds of the preconference speakers are men (or masculine presenting), and all appear to be predominantly White. We noticed only two gender options on the SIOP membership form. Hence, we see a challenging endeavor ahead. The third author has been engaged within the field and with SIOP for a while. Having seen more energy around progressive diversity research, we are concerned about the impression that Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) give to newcomers and those of us who have dedicated our professional and personal lives to equity at work. It is disheartening to see this tentative approach to gender, couched within what appears to be attempts to seem objective and dispassionate. The time has come to move beyond gathering data to determine the degree of inequity and instead collect data to verify that we are taking action and holding ourselves accountable.
Ultimately, we propose something that is—but should not be—radical: we should see gender parity everywhere. If we hold this truth as self-evident, then the potential for misattribution to discrimination is eliminated; an absence of parity signals the presence of interpersonal or systematic bias and barriers, which we must then proceed to locate and eradicate.
You have
Access
“What if gender mattered less? Pigs might actually fly before that happens,” said Dr. Mikki Hebl at the Shaken & Stirred event at the 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conference (I-O Shaken & Stirred, 2017). If gender mattered less, “SIOP itself would see differences. Women comprised only six out of the 21 SIOP fellows this year, and five of the 25 major award recipients yesterday . . . were women.” With that, she dropped the microphone and walked off the stage. This video has been viewed on YouTube more than twice as many times as most of the other Shaken & Stirred videos that are available, and it is this boldness that is needed in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology if we expect to see changes.
Although we agree with the spirit of the focal article by Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018), we argue that the manner in which the focal article discusses the issue of gender parityFootnote 1 within I-O psychology poses a disservice to the field. We discuss these problems in the sections that follow.
Gender Disparity Within I-O Should Come as No Surprise
First, we argue that although I-O psychology as a field may not have previously examined gender parity within the discipline, I-O psychologists have been empirically documenting gender disparities in other organizations for decades. In fact, the earliest research in our field assumed that women were inferior to men and sought to empirically document this assumption (Colella, Hebl, & King, Reference Colella, Hebl and King2017). The tone and positioning of the focal article suggests gender disparities may exist, which also implies that they may not. This exploratory orientation is not aligned with the data that have been accumulated to date. A short list of the significant revelations that can be attributed to I-O psychologists includes the knowledge that women are not thought to be aligned with “ideal leader” stereotypes (Schein, Reference Schein1973, Reference Schein1975); are assumed to not be leaders even when objectively identified as such (Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez, Avery, Tonidandel, Hebl, Smith and McKay2016); and are penalized for being agentic (Rudman & Glick, Reference Rudman and Glick1999), for being communal (Madera, Hebl, & Martin, Reference Madera, Hebl and Martin2009), for not being physically attractive (Hosada, Stone-Romero, & Coats, Reference Hosoda, Stone-Romero and Coats2003), for becoming pregnant (Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary, & Kazama, Reference Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary and Kazama2007; Sabat, Lindsey, King, & Jones, Reference Sabat, Lindsey, King, Jones, Spitzmueller and Matthews2016), and for being mothers (Heilman & Okimoto, Reference Heilman and Okimoto2008; Jones, Botsford-Morgan, Walker, & King, Reference Jones, Morgan, Walker, King and Paludi2013). Given the collective body of knowledge, we assert that it is too late to initiate a conversation about the gender disparities in our field. Instead, like our earliest predecessors, it seems reasonable to assume that these gender disparities exist and, in addition to documenting their loci and magnitudes, to examine our own perpetuation—or remediation—of such disparities.
What Is Said in the Silence
Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) suggest the lack of research on gender disparities in I-O “may signal lack of interest” (p. 370). Within just the past few years, discrimination and harassment experienced by women in the workplace have made headlines (e.g., #metoo, the Google memo, and Gamergate). In the Women's March, an estimated 3.2 million people across the country participated in the largest single-day protest in U.S. history, advocating for women's rights (and other disenfranchised groups) and against sexist, demeaning, and predatory statements made by the then-recently elected president. Given that approximately half the SIOP membership are women, we are skeptical that many of them are not similarly invested in these issues. The inception of the SIOP Women's Inclusion Network is a good example of the interest being paid to these issues now.
Gardner et al.’s (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) suggestion that silence on gender disparities in I-O may be due to an “inability to voice” is worth examining in depth. When the authors coded the gender of authors in the last five volumes of the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), they found, unsurprisingly, that the statistics favored men; 65% of first authors were men and 35% were women. A few paragraphs earlier, the authors note that JAP, in its 100-year history, has never had a female editor. These signposts beg examination of the association between these two statements. In a recent commentary, King, Avery, Hebl, and Cortina (Reference King, Avery, Hebl and Cortina2017) observed that our presumed “objective” review process can be fallible to the same unconscious biases that are indicative and/or a cause of the broader societal disparities outside of the review process. Of over 7,800 papers submitted to the Journal of Management over the past 7 years, those that examined diversity-related topics were held to a higher standard of quality and less likely to be published. Perhaps, the authors suggested, reviewers’ just-world ideologies as members of the privileged group (White men) are threatened by findings that minority groups are unfairly disadvantaged and respond to these threats with hypercriticism. Relatedly, Trump-Steele, Nittrouer, and Hebl (Reference Trump-Steele, Nittrouer and Hebl2016) found that men responded more negatively when they believed that the author of an article on gender equity was a woman. From here, it is reasonable to assert, with confidence, that publication outcomes will be more favorable toward women (and very likely other populations underrepresented in I-O) when women serve as editors. Dr. Belle Rose Ragins’ tenure as associate editor at the Academy of Management Review (AMR) provides an illustrative case study. As editor, she shepherded a special issue devoted to the changing global landscape of diversity research to increase its relevance and applicability. JAP should emulate AMR and conduct a similar “experiment.” As JAP is one of our flagship publications, we should expect to see women at its helm.
We now consider Gardner et al.’s (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) suggestion that silence may signal an “unwillingness” to address the topic of gender disparity. Our field is and has been dominated by men. Broadly, it is easy for those in power to be willfully ignorant to their accumulated cultural privilege and to cite a decreasing wage gap and increasing percentage of women in positions of power as evidence of a postfeminist era. Initiating change inevitably falls to the persecuted minority, but women are not heard when they speak (Butler & Geis, Reference Butler and Geis1990), women are not published as frequently (West, Jacquet, King, Correll, & Bergstrom, Reference West, Jacquet, King, Correll and Bergstrom2013), and women are penalized for confronting sexist behaviors (Becker, Glick, Ilic, & Bohner, Reference Becker, Glick, Ilic and Bohner2011). Although SIOP 2018 marks only the first meeting of the Women's Inclusion Network, we have no doubt that many of the women (and allies) in our field have been shouting to be heard. SIOP should be an environment that does not stifle gender parity, and individuals with power should be willing to talk about it.
We Should Speak Confidently, Scientifically, and Unapologetically
We have no doubt that our field is being criticized in the focal article, but it is time to stop writing about these issues using language that undermines the power of empirical support being presented.Footnote 2 It is difficult to imagine that pages of statistics couched in deflating language that “encourage[s] subsequent commentary, research, and actionable next steps” (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018, p. 370) will prompt change. By critically examining the language and structure used in the focal article, we highlight some deferential mechanisms that are indicative of and may help perpetuate gender disparities.
To broach the conversation, the authors use a strategy that is also commonly used in academic peer reviews: the “good news/bad news” rhetorical device identified by Johnson and Roen (Reference Johnson and Roen1992). Because criticism threatens one's desire for the approval of others, peer reviews often begin with a compliment, which is the reviewer's way of establishing solidarity with the recipient (Brown & Levinson, Reference Brown and Levinson1987). The compliment generally serves one of two functions: to communicate genuine praise or to prime the reader to be more receptive of negative criticism that follows. We are unable to determine the rhetorical function of “applauding evidence of equity in our field” (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018, p. 370); however, one can reasonably draw an overall negative conclusion from the totality of the data that are presented. If the praise is genuine, we question why our field should be proud that in 1919, 17% of first authors in JAP were women (De Meuse, Reference De Meuse1987); a century later, 35% of first authors were women (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018). By comparison, from 1920–1974 women received only 6% of I-O psychology PhDs (Keita, Cameron, & Burrwell, Reference Keita, Cameron and Burrwell2016). As Gardner et al. note, in 2016, they received 61%—an increase of nearly 55%. If the compliment was designed to provide a sense of balance with the data that indicate gender disparities, then we question the necessity of using gentle language when informing scientists—who are invested in researching and improving the workplace—that there is pervasive bias and discrimination in their own field.
The authors “encourage” readers to observe a sampling of the innumerable gender inequities. Hedging is a politeness strategy used when dispensing criticism. Hedges easy to spot in the focal article are modal verbs such as “may” and “might” throughout. They are words or phrases that weaken the power of a statement by indicating that a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn (Fraser, Reference Fraser, Kaltenbock, Mihatsch and Schneider2010), and that scientists use to reassure peers that their conclusions do not extend beyond their data, thereby increasing the likelihood that peers will accept their conclusion over a more strongly worded claim (Madigan, Johnson, & Linton, Reference Madigan, Johnson and Linton1995). For example, the following statement hedges the reader's ability to rely on the validity of the entire paper:
We acknowledge up front that our review is quite cursory and our analyses merely descriptive; strong inferences regarding any potential gender inequity and its causes require richer data and more sophisticated examination. However, we feel that this overview can provide some useful information to start such examination, point to where energies might best be focused, and create an appropriate agenda for the profession in this regard. (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018, 370)
By apologizing that the data are limited, saying that the data are not reliable, and suggesting the data could be useful if we finally decide to prioritize this issue, the authors provide skeptical readers with ample justifications to discount the gender disparities they point to (yet wish to ameliorate). We advocate for letting data speak for themselves and avoiding language that undermines their power.
We Need to Remember That Stereotypes Are Pervasive and Pernicious
When we initially outlined our response, we succumbed to common stereotypes and attributed the language and style of the focal article to the gender of the authors. Although there have been few studies of gender differences in academic writing, Francis, Robson, Read, and Melling (Reference Francis, Robson, Read and Melling2003) found that history and psychology lecturers endorsed the same biases we did, believing that women are more cautious than men in their arguments and men are more likely to make bold claims (Earl-Novell, Reference Earl-Novell2001). In actuality, men and women made bold claims (and hedges) at equal rates and lecturers were unable to determine the gender of undergraduate authors when reviewing papers. The only consistent difference between men's and women's writing appears to be that women are more likely to use pronouns to create a relationship with the reader. (Interestingly, Francis and colleagues (Reference Francis, Robson, Read and Melling2003) also observed that men were more likely to make bold unfounded claims than women.) If we (who pride ourselves on being aware of and mindful to avoid using such stereotypes) fell prey to such silly attributions, others—editors, peer reviewers, and those we want to recruit to the cause of gender parity—will too, which is problematic because reviewers of diversity research often assume that the author is a minority group member (King et al., Reference King, Avery, Hebl and Cortina2017). Thus, already (unconsciously) motivated to be hypercritical of these papers, reviewers may further be (unconsciously) primed to confirm their beliefs regarding deficiencies in women's writing.
We need to examine how using the reasoned and confident yet dispassionate and detached language of academia impacts our fulfillment of SIOP's mission to “enhance human well-being and performance in organizational and work settings.” Many of us were drawn to I-O psychology because of its potential for affecting change, yet it is impossible to improve the well-being of our employees and organizations dispassionately. Too often, the language of academia prohibits our stating the obvious and from calling out harmful behaviors and systems. It would be foolish to believe that potential change agents will be motivated to improve the well-being of our employees and organizations if our language intimates that injustice may or may not exist. We are asked to belie that our studies are informed by inequities we and the individuals that make up our populations witness and endure. Instead, we must assert that only the data have import. Emotion is antonymic to rationality (and considered the purview of women and femininity), but we propose that it empowers us to be bolder when speaking and writing about barriers to equity and promoting science that adequately represents and remediates injustices.
Bold perspectives, questions, and solutions emerge when we write with the expectation of parity in the representation of all identity groups, including women. Further, we are more likely to avoid asking difference-as-deficit research questions that place the burden of remediating these differences on women. For instance, in addition to or in lieu of asking, “Why do women earn less than men?” we can just as easily ask, “Why do managers and hiring executives choose to pay women less than men?” This simple reframing forces those in power to assume responsibility for their role in perpetuating systematic inequity by examining decision practices that rely on unfounded stereotypes, reward toxic masculine behaviors, create hostile environments, and penalize equally rewarding and essential human activities, such as having a family.
Bold Remediation Strategies to Create Parity
We concur with Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) that more data should be collected. In addition to their suggestions, we propose that SIOP create a process to report gender parity issues by surveying members regarding diversity climates and outcomes. This would enable us to develop a clearer understanding of how diversity is impacting our field, in line with research that shows that diversity initiatives are most successful when supported by formal organizational structures (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, Reference Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly2006). Perhaps the Women's Inclusion Network, the Committee on Ethnic Minorities Affairs, and LGBT committees could coordinate and adopt such a task. Considering recent research that highlights the importance of allies in workplace contexts (Martinez, Hebl, Smith, & Sabat, Reference Martinez, Hebl, Smith and Sabat2017; Sabat, Martinez, & Wessel, Reference Sabat, Martinez and Wessel2013), we would hope that this effort would be supported by engaged allies. The third author was disappointed by how few male allies attended the Women's Inclusion Network meeting at the 2017 SIOP conference and noted that none of these were straight men. We eagerly anticipate the upcoming SIOP symposia on allyship.
All awards committees and SIOP-sponsored publication boards should have demographic representation that mirrors that of the SIOP membership (in line with relational demography theories of diversity, e.g., Cox, Reference Cox1994), and given the lack of research on the topic of gender parity issues in our field, TIP should devote at least one article to this topic each issue. Fellowship status conferrals should be equally divided between men and women, and we would actually suggest that conferrals be granted solely to women for the next several years (in line with principles associated with affirmative action policies), as we cannot believe that the span of 18 years between the initiation of the SIOP fellowship program (in 1964) and a woman being first recognized (1982; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) was due to actual deficits in deservingness.
Our field must push for bias reduction in publication processes, and we support and expand upon the recommendations of King and colleagues (Reference King, Avery, Hebl and Cortina2017) in their recent commentary, including diversifying editorial boards with respect to demographic representation and methodological/philosophical orientations (e.g., qualitative methods, feminist/queer theory), providing training in equitable and fair review practices, and incentivizing reviewers to follow these practices.
Academic institutions need to increase the transparency of their selection, promotion, and tenure criteria and be mindful of data that show disadvantages for women in letters of recommendation (Madera, Hebl, & Martin, Reference Madera, Hebl and Martin2009), teaching evaluations (MacNeil, Driscoll, & Hunt, Reference MacNell, Driscoll and Hunt2015), and service expectations (Bell & Gordon, Reference Bell and Gordon1999). It is imperative that we follow our own recommendations that we typically include in the “Practical Recommendations” sections of our papers. Not doing so undermines the research that is being conducted and delegitimizes SIOP to outsiders (and especially insiders) who recognize a disconnect between our recommendations and our practices, in line with justice violation research.
Future Generations Are Taking Note and Responding
The pigs heralding gender equity will not be flying any time soon. The first two authors are attending SIOP this year for the first time. As newcomers to I-O psychology, we notice that because gender has been researched for some time, we feel pressure to examine other topics that are considered more novel. Although we already know discrimination on the basis of gender is a problem, we assert that research in this area is still noteworthy, if not crucial to our headway moving forward, and are frustrated that more has not been done despite our knowledge in this field. Although we are excited to see that there are 80 presentations classified as “inclusion/diversity” at this year's SIOP conference, we have simultaneously noticed that two-thirds of the preconference speakers are men (or masculine presenting), and all appear to be predominantly White. We noticed only two gender options on the SIOP membership form. Hence, we see a challenging endeavor ahead. The third author has been engaged within the field and with SIOP for a while. Having seen more energy around progressive diversity research, we are concerned about the impression that Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Ryan and Snoeyink2018) give to newcomers and those of us who have dedicated our professional and personal lives to equity at work. It is disheartening to see this tentative approach to gender, couched within what appears to be attempts to seem objective and dispassionate. The time has come to move beyond gathering data to determine the degree of inequity and instead collect data to verify that we are taking action and holding ourselves accountable.
Ultimately, we propose something that is—but should not be—radical: we should see gender parity everywhere. If we hold this truth as self-evident, then the potential for misattribution to discrimination is eliminated; an absence of parity signals the presence of interpersonal or systematic bias and barriers, which we must then proceed to locate and eradicate.