When deployed in the absence of any broader effort to advance women and without accountability from managers and leaders, there can be an insidious dark side to sending women to leadership programs targeting women: It can signal that they are deficient and need fixing, or that the underrepresentation of women in senior leadership positions is a result of their inability to compete with men.

EQO37 Published by Allison B. Clark · Just now · The evidence shows that when men are deliberately engaged in gender inclusion programs, 96% of organizations see progress — compared to only 30% of organizations where men are not engaged. But today, too many organizations still miss the mark on gender equity efforts by focusing gender initiatives solely on changing women — from the way they network to the way the lead.

Of course men should mentor women. It’s wrong (and illegal) to exclude half the population. But taking a save-the-day approach won’t work very well, either. Even the standard mentoring approach of the mentor as all-knowing guru, dispensing knowledge, implies a hierarchical, one-way relationship that can frame men who mentor women as champions, heroes, even rescuers. In this model, the mentor shares wisdom, throws down challenges, and when necessary, protects his protégé from all malignant forces in the organization.

Real male allies tend to have three things in common as agents of organizational change. Debra Meyerson and Megan Tompkins’s research, using the National Science Foundation’s ADVANCE program at the University of Michigan, finds that allies need three traits in order to create institutional changes to support gender diversity. First, as majority stakeholders, they have insider knowledge of the organization. Second, they show genuine understanding of the cost of inequality for everyone (not to mention the organizational bottom line). Finally, they demonstrate an honest commitment to what is right and just.