How Men Can “Stand Up” for Women in Group Settings

How can we use the impressive body of research on gender dynamics in group settings to make meaningful changes toward advancing gender equity in our discipline, on our campuses, and in other spheres of our lives? This article highlights key takeaways and practical strategies from empirical research in multiple disciplines.

First, why focus on group dynamics? Academic life consists of navigating a system of formal and informal networks and groups. This article focuses on how men can advance gender equity in group settings; however, it also is important to recognize the need for greater equity for people of color (men as well as women), non-Western scholars, LGBTQ scholars, and other underrepresented groups in the discipline. After all, although our discipline has seen the emergence of the #WomenAlsoKnowStuff movement, Weber (2015) noted that the inaugural International Studies Association Sapphire Series of high-profile panels were gender balanced…without a single person of color.

Although the emphasis in this article is on what happens in a group setting, of equal importance is the type of groups in which women participate. For example, empirical research on labor in academia demonstrates that women often take on most of the invisible disciplinary and institutional labor that carries a burden of extra time and energy, which then can reduce their ability to fully participate in groups centered around their research. They also are less likely to take on administrative and/or leadership roles with higher profiles and more power. The invisible labor of women of color is particularly troubling because that work (e.g., supporting students of color) has been identified as strategically important, yet it remains unrewarded through the tenure and promotion process (Matthew 2016). To “fully play their role” in our discipline, women and their voices must be included in research groups and networks, from leadership positions and editorial boards within our professional organizations and journals to high-profile committees with greater visibility and decision-making power. How can we resolve the tension between gender equity and diversity so that women do not have to be everywhere? Given the demographics of the discipline shifting from only 10% of female full professors in 1980 to 28.6% in 2010 (APSA 2011; Dionne 2019), an equity approach to service is recommended. Men in leadership and administrative roles can assign, approve, and recommend service roles with a higher workload and lower profile to men with seniority. This is especially important for departments and institutions in which women are underrepresented and stretched thin because they have assumed a greater burden of service toward the goal of diversity. Instead, women could be given opportunities for higher-profile service roles with lower workloads. At the same time, women also must be rewarded for the work they choose to do instead of being shepherded away from it. Equity requires meaningful changes to standards for tenure and promotion that recognize the diversity of work being done by women in our discipline, and it expands the notion of a “model” colleague in the three areas of scholarship, teaching, and service. The flexibility of our jobs opens doors for incredible opportunities for different types of work, yet standards for tenure and promotion may serve to punish those who deviate from the narrowly defined work model(s) established mostly by men.

The strategies presented herein focus on preserving (i.e., not diminishing) and amplifying the voices of women in groups, recognizing that whereas their presence is a necessary condition for gender equity, it is not sufficient. In short, their voices also must be heard. We know from empirical research that when women are present and their voices are heard, it can change group outcomes for the better. Examples in politics include more women in Parliament leading to more stringent climate-change policies (Mavisakalyan and Tarverdi 2019); women’s participation in legislative bodies improving democracy “above and beyond” the issue of representation (Barnes 2016, 17); and female judges in the United States more often deciding cases in favor of the party alleging gender discrimination and influencing male judges on mixed-gender panels to do the same (Boyd, Epstein, and Martin 2010). In business, more women on corporate boards leads to improvements in monitoring (Adams and Ferreira 2009) and strategy (Post and Byron 2015) functions.

The strategies presented herein focus on preserving (i.e., not diminishing) and amplifying the voices of women in groups, recognizing that whereas their presence is a necessary condition for gender equity, it is not sufficient. In short, their voices also must be heard.

Organizational Rules Matter

To preserve and/or amplify women’s voices (regardless of how many are present), men can advocate for decision-making rules based on consensus or unanimity. Research in our own discipline (Karpowitz and Mendelberg 2014) demonstrated that women’s voices in smaller groups (i.e., fewer than 10) are more likely to be suppressed when deliberation and decision making are based on majority rule and there are fewer than a majority of women present. Small groups essentially can preserve the voices of women through two choices: “unanimous rule and few women, or (…) majority rule and many women” (Karpowitz, Mendelberg, and Shaker 2012, 533). This challenges our understanding of a “critical mass,” in which there are more than one but fewer than 50% women in a group. Simply stated, a critical mass of women may suffer the same suppression in a group that operates under majority rule. So, what can men do? Unless a group already has a majority of women, men can advocate strongly for and implement a different set of rules—for example, consensus or unanimity—that may foster greater dialogue and debate and may require more than 50% buy-in for decisions. Paying closer attention to organizational rules and encouraging more dialogue in decision making might be better for everyone.

Amplification

Amplification is a strategy that can be used by men in any group setting, regardless of organizational rules, to limit the suppression of women’s voices and go one step further to amplify their contributions. It is borrowed directly from the term used by White House staffers under Barack Obama to describe what they did during meetings, according to Eilperin (2016): “When a woman made a key point, other women would repeat it, giving credit to its author. This forced the men in the room to recognize the contribution—and denied them the chance to claim the idea as their own.” This may entail saying, “Thanks, (her/them), that is an excellent idea for us to pursue further” or “I’d like to return to what (she/they) said, it was a good insight for us to consider further.” This strategy also can shift the way that others interact with women in the room: Eilperin (2016) reported that because of this “amplification” by Obama’s aides, he called on women and junior aides more often as a result.

Although developed by women for women, men can use the same strategy. Amplification also can mean directly calling on a woman first when moderating a roundtable, chairing a panel, and soliciting questions and/or input from an audience (Hinsley, Sutherland, and Johnston 2017).

Interruptions

We know from empirical research that when women speak, they are more likely than men to be interrupted (Cannon, Robinson, and Smith-Lovin 2019; Jacobi and Schweers 2017). However, research in linguistics provides a more nuanced story, identifying different types of interruptions. Cooperative interruptions are intended to help the speaker by offering agreement, assistance, and/or clarification (Li 2001). When used in combination with the amplification strategy, this type of interruption may be acceptable. Intrusive interruptions, conversely, are disruptive and can take the form of disagreement, floor taking, topic change, and/or tangentialization (Li 2001). Men can establish a rule or a norm of avoiding intrusive interruptions as a clear boundary within a group and then hold other people (i.e., men) accountable by reminding them of this expectation and explicitly calling it out when it occurs. As a variant on the amplification strategy, men can do this by responding directly to intrusive interruptions with language such as “(she/they) was interrupted and I’d like to hear what (she/they) has to say” or “I don’t think (she/they) was done, let’s hear the rest of what (she/they) has to say.”

If men are willing to take accountability for their own pattern of interrupting others, they can put this strategy into action by using a technique from sports. Men can figure out their average rate of (intrusive) interruptions by tallying them at their next meeting and then set a goal to reduce that rate by paying close attention when they are about to speak, evaluating whether what they want to say meets the criteria of an intrusive interruption. If they are on the fence, the answer is usually “yes.” Men can self-correct by stopping themselves from speaking in the moment, saying something more cooperative, or using the amplification strategy. To be fair, this may not be natural and some men may even protest in the spirit of Robert Altman, who famously used “overlapping sound and dialogue […] as a symbol of the messiness of real life” (University of Michigan 2013).

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

Men can explicitly praise the contributions of women to others outside of a group, with the intention of making their contributions more visible (Hinsley, Sutherland, and Johnston 2017). This credit should be clear and specific. Ambiguity about who is responsible and deserves credit for group effort can exacerbate gender inequality because “women are rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role on the task than men in the same group” (Chang and Milkman 2020). This also may include giving clear credit for publications through an acknowledgments section because norms for the order of author names vary across subfields in our discipline and can create confusion about where credit is due.

In conclusion, men can be powerful advocates for gender equity in the discipline and workplace. A key area for improvement is understanding the context of gender dynamics in group settings and actively adapting their own behavior in response. Why might this be difficult for some men to do in practice? Lack of awareness is one explanation; however, it also must be said that “men who (speak) up with ideas (are) seen as having higher status and were more likely to emerge as leaders” (McClean et al. 2018). These strategies indirectly may threaten or reduce their power and influence, and men must first come to terms with that before they can purport to be an advocate for gender (or racial) equity.