Blog & News Read the latest news and insights on diversity and equal opportunities in Swiss organizations. We will keep you regularly updated by posting the latest news about the project as well as exciting insights on the topic of diversity and equal opportunities in Swiss organizations. Why male managers are important for equal opportunities: A research perspective 27 February 2020, by Prof. Dr. Julia Nentwich In our research and intervention project we are tackling male managers’ role in equal opportunities. What do they think about women in management positions and respective measures for equal opportunities in the company and what are they willing to do or in what ways are they already involved? In this blog post I am explaining in greater detail why the commitment of male managers is particularly important and why it can have a different effect compared to women’s commitment in the topic. The earliest argument I am aware of stems from Australian gender sociologist Raewyn Connell (2003): Since gender is a relational phenomenon, i.e. masculinity and femininity are in a relationship to each other, they must be changed together. In terms of gender theory, it becomes clear here that understandings of femininity can only be changed in interaction with masculinity, and that therefore change cannot be initiated by women alone. In addition, not only women but also men suffer from the negative effects of current gender relations. In particular, the still valid notions of masculinity have a negative impact, e.g. on the health and life expectancy of men (Scambor et al. 2014). But how can this general insight be applied to measures to promote equal opportunities in companies? From a change management perspective, managers are crucial to the success of any change initiative. As men still represent the clear majority in leadership positions and especially in upper management, they are important players, on the one hand because of the quantitative ratio, but also because of their powerful positions. In addition, their leadership skills are less questioned, and they are better integrated into central networks than women in comparable positions (Eagly, Gartizia & Carli, 2014). It is this mix of gender and position that makes the support from male managers for gender equality issues so important. Interestingly, there is not much research being done on this so far. One exception is a study conducted by organizational researcher Jennifer deVries (2015), also stemming from Australia. She selected three interviews with male managers and one interview with a woman in a managerial position from a broader study in order to analyse in greater detail how promoting equal opportunities was perceived differently by these individuals. The analysis of the interviews shows that the male executives are often seen as "one of the boys" - i.e. as someone who belongs to the group of male executives as a matter of fact and whose competence in this position is not questioned. This is in contrast to the female manager, who, especially in a male domain, is often perceived as the "token women", and thus gains increased visibility, whereby their behaviour is evaluated more critically compared to their male colleagues. In the interviews it was also discussed that women are often assumed to have a self-interest in the topic, whereas men are assumed to have an interest in the matter. As a result, women's involvement is perceived as less legitimate and impactful, while the involvement of their male colleagues is more likely to be explained by rational considerations - such as the fact that gender equality serves the interests of the company. The results of the interviews confirm the well-established state of research: While women in management positions are more questioned and are not regarded as competent in the same way, men are automatically attributed precisely these competencies by gender (Eagly, Gartizia, Carli & 2014). This gives men's leadership behaviour greater impact than the same behaviour shown by a woman. This is even more true when it is a management position in a male-dominated company (Eagly, Karau & Makhijani 1995). As deVries (2015) also shows, the men she interviewed are very successful in using their powerful position for a "good cause": They are committed to equal opportunities and can thus promote and support internal company programs and measures. Equal opportunities are thus perceived more strongly as an important corporate objective. At the same time, however, the commitment also appears to have an effect on the perception of the activities of female colleagues: They are supported in their concerns and their commitment to equal opportunities no longer needs to be as prominent as it used to be. In our view, this is an important step towards the success of these measures! Connell, R. W. (2003). The Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality. United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). de Vries, J. A. (2015). Champions of gender equality: Female and male executives as leaders of gender change. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2013-0031 Eagly, A. H., Gartzia, L., & Carli, L. L. (2014). Female Advantage: Revisited. In The Oxford Handbook of Gender in Organizations. Oxford University Press. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.125 Scambor, E., Bergmann, N., Wojnicka, K., Belghiti-Mahut, S., Hearn, J., Holter, Ø. G., Gärtner, M., Hrženjak, M., Scambor, C., & White, A. (2014). Men and Gender Equality: European Insights. Men and Masculinities, 17(5), 552–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X14558239 Bias-Trainings: What can they really do? 20 December 2019, by our guest author Nina Locher, student in the HSG Master Program "Management, Organization and Culture". "Think manager, think male" is still very common The Swiss top management is made up of 80% men and women are promoted much less frequently (Advance & HSG, 2018). Pay gaps are also still common. The higher the occupational position, the lower the proportion of women and the greater the pay gap between men and women (Federal Statistical Office, 2018). No wonder that stereotypical notions of "good managers" are still widespread. While women are regarded as kind-hearted, caring and sensitive, men are characterized by performance orientation, willingness to take responsibility and rationality (Heilman, 2012). Stereotypical, yes, but quite effective, as we associate this with manager’s characteristics that are more likely to be assigned to men: "think manager think male". Our idea of the good manager is dominated by stereotypical masculine characteristics. Women in management positions find themselves in a dilemma: If they show stereotypical feminine qualities , they are quickly perceived as less competent for a management position. However, if they show the qualities required for a manager, such as assertiveness or ambition, they are perceived as less feminine, which in turn results in a more negative assessment(Eagly & Karau, 2002). No matter what they do, they cannot win, and the prevailing stereotypes prevent them from advancing their careers. Bias trainings and what they (can) change More and more companies around the world have recognized this problem and taken action. “Bias training" is currently a widespread form of intervention. Its aim is to free employees from their conscious and unconscious prejudices and thus ensure equal opportunities in career advancement. But how do these trainings work and what can we expect from them? In my master thesis I investigated the question of the effectiveness of bias trainings. After initial research into the current state of research, it became clear that effectiveness can only be assessed if two fundamentally different training objectives are distinguished: On the one hand, the change of attitudes, which includes stereotypical ideas of women in management positions as well as their evaluation, on the other hand the change of behaviour, which can then be expressed in decisions made differently. Here it becomes immediately clear that changing individual attitudes alone will not make a decisive difference in decisions for or against the advancement of women as leaders (Noon, 2017). The people who decide on the staffing of top positions must also change their behaviour if something is to change. In my master thesis I therefore differentiated between the following two questions: 1. "Are bias trainings resulting in attitude change?" and 2. "Can bias trainings effect changes in behaviour?". What does the current state of research tell us? Fundamentally, the state of research shows that bias trainings are very able to create awareness of diversity and discrimination (Carnes et al., 2015; Majumdar et al., 2004; Moss-Racusin et al., 2016), they contribute to an increase of knowledge (Bezrukova et al., 2016) and, at least in the short term, to change implicit attitudes (Jackson, Hillard & Schneider, 2014; Girod et al., 2016). The implicit attitudes are those that are not explicitly addressed in the situation in question. In contrast to the explicit attitudes, they represent a particularly large research interest. The work of Jackson, Hillard and Schneider (2014), for example, is interesting in this respect. The researchers examined the influence of bias training on attitudes towards women working in typical male disciplines at various universities. In their methodologically exemplary study, they came to the conclusion that bias training is perfectly capable of changing implicit attitudes at short notice. Similarly, Girod, Fassiotto, Grewal, Ku, Sriram, Nosek and Valantine (2016) examined prejudices against women in leadership positions. Their study also shows that bias training can influence implicit attitudes in the short term. The extent to which bias training can be expected to have long-term effects, however, is still unclear. While the effect of bias training on short-term change in implicit attitudes seems to be clearly demonstrated (Lai et al., 2016), this is less clear for the effects with regards to behaviour. However, this is due in particular to the very poor state of research. Hardly any study exclusively investigates this relationship. Often, certain behavioural adaptations are measured only incidentally in a study that actually focuses on the analysis of attitude changes. For example, the study by Forscher, Mitamura, Dix, Cox and Devine (2017). This study shows that people who have undergone bias training are more willing to speak out publicly against a discriminatory contribution than they would have done without the training. The findings of my master thesis clearly show that further research would be necessary for providing evidence about long-term effects and behavioural adjustments resulting from bias training. Furthermore, as far as I know, no study so far has particularly investigated the effect of bias training in the very context of recruitment and promotion decisions. If bias trainings, then do it right! Despite these important research gaps it can be said that bias training has positive effects. For the practical implementation of these trainings it is of course particularly interesting, which concrete training elements contribute to a training success in a company. Many studies list such beneficial elements for bias interventions. Central to this are all elements that go beyond the change of individual attitudes and address action competences - i.e. behaviour - or are integrated into larger strategic or structural measures such as the management development of a company (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016). In the following I present the most important findings based on my analysis: - A longer duration of the training can have a positive effect on its effectiveness (e.g. Bezrukova et al., 2016). - Training should also include the learning of specific action competences and the thematizing of concrete strategies and should not be limited to raising awareness of discrimination and changing attitudes (e.g. Bezrukova et al. 2016; Roberson et al., 2009). - It is recommended to combine different mediation methods (presentations, discussions etc.) and to make the workshops lively and emotional (e.g. Lai et al., 2016). - The effectiveness of diversity and bias trainings can be supported by additional structural measures, e.g. the integration of the equality goals into the company goals, or the integration of the workshops into everyday work outside the training context (e.g. Bezrukova et al. 2016; Williamson & Foley, 2018). - In order to facilitate the transfer of training into everyday working life, competence-based, action-oriented learning should be dealt with in depth in the interventions (e.g. Carnes et al. 2015; Girod et al., 2016; Devine et al., 2012). - Support from superiors and colleagues is important when conducting training. These have an important influence on the application of transfer strategies (Roberson et al., 2009). With regard to bias training, the studies reviewed provide encouraging results that give us some hope for a future in which equal opportunities for women and men in career advancement becomes a reality. However, in order to clarify the question whether bias trainings are actually able to contribute to the permeability of the well-known glass ceiling, additional long-term studies and studies on behavioural adaptations with validated measurement methods would be needed. These will be able to answer the question of whether people's attitudes can only be influenced in a short term range or if these changes can be sustained over a longer period of time and whether this will actually change behaviour in the decision-making situation. Breaking down complexity with the model of organizational levels promotes equal opportunities 31 October 2019, by Dr. Gabriele Schambach Realizing equal opportunities in corporate practice is a highly complex issue. It is easy to lose track of where is the best place to start. Or you become entangled in individual measures without keeping an eye on the overall strategy. The model of organizational levels may help you to see the wood for the trees. Starting point There is no company that is "neutral" at a meta-level. This statement does not refer to the question of whether there are "female" organizations. Rather, it is a question of perceiving and highlighting aspects of gender inequalities in companies – and of changing them. In organizations and companies, a number of individual women and men get involved and put their competences and qualities to work. Together with managers, colleagues and employees, they shape the self-image in areas of responsibility, within their departments, activities, etc. And all that is not gender-neutral! Organizations and companies are generally not objective entities, as they are formed by people. Gender is a central category that manifests and (re)produces itself in people and cultures as well as in structures and content. The general concept I developed the model of organizational levels on the basis of my many years of experience in advising companies and organizations. The concept is based on the idea that organizations and companies are characterized by different levels: • The level of the person = the individual • The level of culture= working together • The level of structure = general conditions and measurements • The level of content = offers and products These are not to be understood as a rigid framework, they are rather intertwined and boundaries can become blurred. While each level has its own inner logic, the levels are at the same time mutually dependent. In order to create equal opportunities, changes at all levels are required – in other words, an overall strategy. It is helpful to first look at the individual levels separately and develop suitable measures. They are then considered in their interaction and reassembled in their dependencies. This enables a sorted, clear and structured procedure – which is why I chose the presentation as a puzzle (see image below). Interdependencies The interdependency between the levels is illustrated by the following example; the goal of increasing the proportion of women in management positions: on the individual level of the person, presumably every person has an opinion, expectations or fears. At the level of culture, the "togetherness" of the individuals becomes clear: Is the goal rather rejected? Are devaluations of "alibi women" or "quota women" common among the group? Is the goal supported? For example, is there an open discussion about leadership styles? The level of structure essentially reflects how the other two levels were implemented in the environment: here the conditions become apparent that promote an increase in the proportion of women in management positions. The model also works the other way around: If the environmental conditions in the firm are arranged to be compatible for all involved, for example, meetings are generally finished by 4 p.m., then on the cultural level this represents firm-wide acceptance that people with family responsibilities may end their work day – without judgmental jokes, remarks or the likes being made, such as "You're probably working only half a day today!” On the individual level, these conditions and cultures then attract people who want to pursue a career without "giving up" their family. These interdependencies also exist in a less diverse environment: having exclusively full-time working conditions, no flexitime, and requiring physical presence creates a culture, in which only those who "fully sacrifice" themselves to be at the service of the company are regarded as high performers and high potentials, regardless of their (personal) losses. People, who are interested or who wish to pursue a career in these firms, share these common values and arrange their (family) lives accordingly. These interdependencies also illustrate why some companies offer "the right" framework conditions to, for example, encourage the advancement of women, but at the same time the proportion of women in management positions does not increase: the company's culture lags well behind the (adapted) firm environment. On the level of the person, there are (occasionally) managers, who formally agree with the goals, but do not (or refuse) to understand the meaning behind them. Their mindset makes achieving equal opportunities more difficult, since they may only "wait and see", may not act proactively or even hope that the issue will disappear again. Each level therefore has its own objective in promoting equal opportunities: • The level of the person → awareness, knowledge and training • The level of culture → dismantling of dominant cultures • The level of structure → changing the environment • The level of content → consideration of gender aspects within offers and products The level of the person This level focuses on individuals as actors and (re-)producers of (un)equal opportunities. Every person in a company has his or her own biography, reality, background, educational and professional profession, idea of a happy life, of good work, of a successful career and of equal opportunities. What each individual person thinks and does in private is none of a company's business. But if the organization has set itself the goal of equal opportunities, then it needs managers and employees who promote this goal in their work environment. Under the rubric "sensitization and qualification", it is about • informing about the effects of social conditions on individual life realities • raising awareness on (structural) discrimination and disadvantages as well as privileges • addressing personal (dis)interest • the (self-)reflection of stereotypes, prejudices, unconscious bias, role perceptions • addressing doubts, fears and anxieties • acquiring gender diversity competences as part of one's professional and social competences • knowing and learning about appropriate activities and tools to promote equal opportunities. Experience has shown that each person has his or her own private opinion on the subject of gender diversity and it is good to let them have this opinion. The idea is not to missionize or "re-educate" people – this leads to resistance and defense. A promising approach is to address people in their capacity as managers or employees. Managers in particular have a duty to ensure equal opportunities, amongst other things. By focusing on the professional environment and the task at hand, personal aspects tend to fade into the background. In my opinion, this makes it easier to get involved with gender issues and actively promote measurements, particularly for men. The level of culture As I mentioned before, this level refers to how we are collaborating – and how this manifests itself. Organizational culture emerges as a dynamic (learning) process in dealing with challenges in the company’s environment as well as the internal organizing. Throughout this process, preferred orientation patterns and solutions emerge. Assessments of what is regarded as "good" or "bad" are coming up and determine what is becoming a routine. Culture is about the unspoken and unwritten laws; it is described as a "working atmosphere" or social climate and is perceived rather intuitively and emotionally. Culture is thus also difficult to comprehend, because it is already challenging to put the concept into words. Culture includes, among other things: • norms and values • understanding of leadership • management style • performance and promotion criteria • dealing with ideas, innovations, mistakes and conflicts • communication • language Corporate culture is regarded as the central element that determines success or failure of change processes in organizational development – unfortunately, it is also the most difficult level to change! A single management workshop on the subject of leadership, a reflection seminar on norms and values or an exchange on the mission statement (that is to be developed) are not enough. Changing corporate culture requires continuity and repetition. Through various diverse and creative formats, the level of culture can be investigated from different points of view. It is helpful if one can connect it to tools on the structural level or if suitable formats are developed by workshop participants themselves. To illustrate this, let us look at the example of introducing the “home office”: On a structural level, we have to aknowledge the concrete working agreements in place. On a personal level, control or trust play a central role, as does our individual attitude towards that measurement. On a cultural level, the issue is a culture of facetime and the self-conception of a manager and his/her leadership style. I cannot force a manager to "finally realize" that home office has many advantages for everyone involved. Nor can I nail the company agreement to his/her forehead so that he/she can implement it. Those who don't want to are clever at finding loopholes and ways out. Instead, for example, it would be better advised to: • encourage the Board of Directors or management to lead by example • portray role models and communicate (internally) about pilot projects • communicate (internally) the advantages of Home Office for companies, executives and employees • illustrate in an annual presentation (e.g. in the annual report) the proportion of working time within the company spent in home office, per area and per department • publish an online quiz with humorous questions and possible answers – with a subsequent presentation of the results (prepared anonymously) • put up information displays, posters or stickers with "Have you considered working from home today?!" • In the case of obligatory recurring executive meetings, put the topic on the agenda each time – with a different orientation, for example, taking up previously mentioned options Changing the culture can only be done through habituation and making something an everyday routine. At the same time, it happens when employees realize that the issue will not "go away again". In the case of managers, companies should also use the peer effect, which works well either through role models or (healthy) competition. The level of structure As mentioned above, this level is at the same time prerequisite and outcome. It is embedded in the environment, which is self-evident on the other two levels. At the same time, the structures determine corporate culture and makes the company attractive for certain people and unattractive for others. Instruments and measures for achieving equal opportunities include, for example: • Flexible working time and space • Target agreements with quantitative and qualitative indicators • Gender-oriented job descriptions and job advertisements • Structured and transparent recruitment and promotion practices • Life-phase oriented employee development Here we also notice the interdependency with the other two levels: at the cultural level, for example, sabbaticals or parental leave must be seen as valuable opportunities for acquiring extra-occupational skills that are useful for professional work (such as organizational talent, patience, curiosity, dealing with the unusual, getting involved in new things etc.). As a result, sabbaticals and child-raising periods are then promoted structurally, included as a performance characteristic when analyzing an employee's job potential, queried during job interviews and integrated into life-phase oriented employee development. At the same time, employees and managers must also be convinced of the positive effects so that, on the one hand, they accept and approve the offers of sabbaticals. On the other hand, this is also necessary to ensure future employees are asked about these types of development phases during, for example, job interviews – and that the aspect it not simply ignored. The level of content I have neglected this level so far because it often does not play such a major role in companies. In contrast, this level is more relevant, for example, in the education and social sectors. Here we are concerned with offers for the various target groups (in the education sector) or the consideration of gender in the social sector (such as gender-oriented nursery work or intercultural care). The question of target groups and gender aspects in professional work naturally also concerns companies. In most companies, however, only few people have a real influence on products, which is why it may be sufficient, for example, to include the target groups in (external) communication. Conclusion Over the past years this model of "organizations" has helped me a lot with falicitating change towards equal opportunities. It allows an understanding of relations and interdependencies and serves as basis for developing and implementing structured activities and measures. However, there is no magic formula: every company is different. Employees are different, cultures are specific, industries are diverse and (the most urgent) needs vary. Consequently, these must be taken into consideration and instruments and concepts need to be adapted accordingly. An energy supply company certainly has a different organizational culture with its tasks and employees compared to a social economy organization. But regardless of the differences, there are common principles that help to implement equal opportunities. In addition, every organizational development project is a dynamic process. The truly relevant levels, the activities that promise the greatest possible success or the "biggest failures" may only become apparent over time and during the course of the project. My own experience taught me a lot about the ups and downs involved : The pleasures we feel in using creative approaches in the designing the processes, and the frustrations we experience when the organization develops much slower than we previously expected and desired. In my opinion, creating pressure, for example through sanctions, only creates counter-pressure, which in most cases increases behavioural rigidity and more evasive manoeuvres. Every change process also involves resistance, and as this is where the energy is, it is important to work with that energy and not against it. Besides the absolutely essential support of management, it is viewing the organization as learning and hence diversity as a facilitator for good solutions. If you would like to find out more about our work, please subscribe to our newsletter. If you would like to contribute to our project as a manager or equal opportunities expert, we would be pleased to hear from you via email. This post was first published on Genderworks. From Diversity Management to Diversity & Inclusion? 2 September 2019, by Dr. Gabriele Schambach As already 10 years ago, the conference and scientific networking meeting of diversity researchers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland took place from 26 to 27 August 2019 at the University of St. Gallen (more information). In eight sessions, 26 contributions from research and practice were presented and used as a starting point to discuss how diversity and inclusion can be (better) implemented in companies and organizations. The contributions dealt with questions of how diversity and inclusion can be anchored conceptually and theoretically, as well as questions about change, learning, contradictions and exclusions. Moreover, the latest empirical results from organizations, administration, universities and non-profit organizations were unveiled. Over and above geographical and content boundaries, the focus was again and again on how we can make it possible to create more diversity and facilitate inclusion. The diverse nature of contributions showed in how many different contexts diversity and inclusion are addressed and dealt with. The wealth of information stimulated reflection as well as lively discussions about the contributions during session breaks. Three fantastic keynotes were the anchor points of the conference: Prof. Maddie Janssen from the University of Leuven in Belgium offered a review of the development of diversity research and presented a truly exciting dance project, which represents a potential opportunity for further sustainable research in the field. No less inspiring, and particularly exciting for our project, Prof. Elisabeth Kelan from the University of Essex in the UK presented her research and illustrated how (male) managers can promote equal opportunities (we will give you more details in a separate post!). Serving as a transition from the academic conference to the practitioner-oriented 3rd Gallen Diversity and Inclusion Conference on August 29, 2019, PD Dr. Thomas Köllen from the University of Bern presented his research findings on LGBT* in organizational and management research. Titled "Inclusion means cultural change - or what male executives can do for the advancement of women in the company", Prof. Dr. Julia Nentwich and I submitted a paper from our project "Leaders for Equality - equality needs men" (see presentation slides). For our presentation, we started by giving an overview of the status quo of international research on the topic of men, male executives and gender equality in organizations. While there have been several interesting projects and some advancements have been made indeed, research is scarce on this topic to date. On the one hand, this is regrettable because we would like to build on existing work in our project. On the other hand, it makes clear how urgently our research contribution on the role of male executives is needed if diversity and inclusion in companies are to prosper. For the second part, we presented our professional experiences in working on that topic with male managers in companies. Like this we were able to show that some of the practical examples are more far-reaching than current research. For us, this is also the confirmation that our project will create a close link between academic and business practice. In the coming months, we will now gradually fill the gaps in research and link them to activities in our project companies. In any case, we will also present our findings at next year's specialist and networking conference for diversity researchers in German-speaking countries at the Bern University of Applied Sciences (see here). If you would like to find out more about our work, please subscribe to our newsletter. If you would like to contribute to our project as a manager or equal opportunities expert, we would be pleased to hear from you via email. Why Organizations Need to Include Men to Promote Diversity 1 July 2019, by Dr. Gabriele Schambach Diversity is a women's topic. Women are still (strongly) underrepresented in the top management of Swiss companies. Women earn less than men. Their skills and potential as managers and experts are still underestimated. As mothers, they take care of most of the so-called care work, i.e. the everyday caring for children and relatives as well as managing the household. Their professional biographies are incomplete due to family periods. Their career prospects are limited by part-time work. Pensions are correspondingly low. They are regarded as emotional, conflict-shy, bitchy, family-oriented - all characteristics that are not particularly appreciated in professional life. Companies react – if at all - with individual measures for further qualification and empowerment of women. They offer solutions to help balance career and family, mentoring and seminar programs, networks of women etc. These are indisputably meaningful activities - but the assumption that the focus on women alone changes the situation is not enough. The reason being that these activities are usually designed to change women and make them conform with the circumstances of the company, which is also known as "Fixing the Women". Necessary changes in corporate structures and cultures are not taken into account. Likewise, male colleagues, superiors and employees are not taken into account - and thus the potential they offer for equality is not exploited. Even though it is absolutely necessary to include all employees in a company, in order to initiate the necessary cultural change. Especially the – predominantly male – managers need to be brought on board. They represent a resource for equality that has hardly been used to date and which also represents – quantitatively and qualitatively – an influential stakeholder group. Only together, it is possible to implement adequate measures and achieve equal opportunities. But why should men support gender equality? After all, they no longer have the same career opportunities if there are to be more women in management positions! There are (at least) two answers to this question: 1. Men also benefit from gender equality. So far they have worked long hours in the office and bear the largest burden in generating family income. This responsibility, as well as the culture of competition and dominance that often exists in male-dominated companies, is unhealthy for men. Their life plans are based on the role of "tough guys", who feed the family and have a career. Variation and diversity exists in the form of sabbaticals, family time, part-time work, being a houseman or the like, but as of right now, they are still all too often the exotic exception and not yet the norm. Many fathers would also like to have more time for their family. Both fathers and mothers want to be there for their children after starting a family. A more reliable professional development of women would enable men to live a more relaxed life and at the same time help reduce their wives' overall workload. It becomes clear: If corporate cultures and structures change towards more equality, this also opens up a vast range of opportunities for men. 2. Promoting equal opportunities is a task for – male - managers. Implementing equal opportunities in day-to-day business is a question of fairness and justice. It has also been known for some time that equality, equal opportunities and diversity are by no means harmful for companies - on the contrary, they contribute significantly to the economic success of companies. If something is to change here in the coming years, men are wanted in their function as managers and as designers of change. – and in this function, we should urgently help them to assume this responsibility! Of course, promoting equal opportunities does not only require men. It also requires women. And because we believe that equality and change can likely be achieved by managers, we have named our project "Leaders for Equality – managers seizing opportunities”. If you want to learn more about our work, please subscribe to our newsletter. If you would like to contribute to our project as a manager or diversity & inclusion expert, we would be delighted to hear from you via email.