Shot of businessman and businesswoman advocating for gender equality against a grey studio ... [+]
It is generally assumed that gender diversity and inclusion programs are created only for the benefit of women. However, gender parity would be extremely advantageous for men, too.
Here is why:
(1) It would boost global GDP by $28.4 trillion: Estimates by McKinsey and The Economist indicate that countries would increase their GDP by 5-20% if women’s participation in the workforce was on a par with men’s. The potential gains are substantially larger in nations where women are significantly underrepresented in paid work. For example, India would be 60% richer. Since 108 countries effectively ban women from doing certain jobs, restricting the career options of 2.3 billion women, the economic benefits of gender parity would be widespread. Note that GDP increases lead to improvements in virtually any measure of objective and subjective wellbeing, from health and life expectancy (including infant mortality), to educational attainment, upward mobility, consumer spending, leisure time, and quality of life. And when such gains result from an increase in productivity and wider workforce participation, they have the extra advantage of reducing inequality.
(2) It would upgrade the quality of our leaders: Since women tend to outperform men on most of the critical elements of leadership potential (e.g., college grades and credentials, including MBAs, emotional intelligence, integrity, humility, collaboration skills, self-awareness, and absence of dark side traits, such as psychopathy and narcissism), selecting and electing more women to leadership roles would significant elevate the general quality of our leaders. Although gender parity is usually seen as a cause or “input” variable, it would be better understood as an effect or “output” variable. Simply put: if leadership selection were meritocratic, we would not just end up with more female leaders, but also better leaders. And better leadership means better outcomes (e.g., fairness, wellbeing, performance, results, and success) for all. Indeed, the success and wellbeing of teams, organizations, and nations depends more on the quality of their leaders than any other factor. It should be noted that conventional estimates of the ROI of gender parity (point 1) are probably conservative, for they fail to account for the significant economic impact of having better leaders.
(3) It would make it easier for competent men to become leaders: To the degree that gender parity comprises the selection of leaders based on merit, it would also make it easier for competent men to become leaders. Ironically, many men are overlooked for leadership roles for having the right range of qualities that actually make leaders better: e.g., empathy, humility, self-awareness, a preference for listening rather than talking, and being less interested in shameless self-promotion than in making others better. The reason is twofold: first, these traits are typically associated with a more feminine style of leadership (so, they don’t fit the conventional macho-type); second, it is a logical side effect of our general tendency to pick leaders on the basis of their confidence rather than competence, charisma rather than humility, and narcissism rather than integrity. So, if we can make it easier for competent women to become leaders, we will also make it easier for competent men. This would require us to make it harder for incompetent men to become leaders, as they currently over-index in leadership roles.
(4) It would increase meritocracy: Regardless of their religious, moral, political, or cultural code, people have a general tendency to prefer meritocracy to nepotism, aristocracy, plutocracy, or kleptocracy, which is why if you are part of any of these non-meritocratic elites, you will go to great lengths to deceive yourself into thinking that your privilege is fully deserved. This includes the conviction that attempts to improve gender parity are somehow anti-meritocratic, as if a world rule by men were the natural consequence of picking "the best person for each role, irrespective of gender". Unfortunately, this notion is in stark contrast with a vast body of academic research showing either no significant sex differences in any meaningful driver of educational or occupational performance, or differences favouring women. So, if you are OK with the fact that over 90% of CEOs in the biggest corporations in the world are male, and 90% of the world’s nations are led by men, then you must accept that you don’t really care about meritocracy.
(5) It would reduce gendercide (sex-based abortion): As extensively documented over the past century, many of the largest countries in the world still exercise sex-based discrimination even before a child is born. Although nature and evolution dictate a natural balance whereby as many girls as boys should be born, parental preferences for boys over girls has resulted in a significant overrepresentation of boys in many nations. South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore reported sex ratios at birth of 109 males to 100 females. The figure is 112 for India and 121 for China. Even in the U.S., it has been estimated that 160 million women are missing from the population. According to estimates from the United Nation, restoring the global balance of males and females will take until 2050. Historically, societies where men outnumber women are nasty places to live in. Violence, rape, crime, and other forms of antisocial behavior increase, and when more men have to compete for fewer women, the economic and social prospects for men decrease. A world in which something closer to gender parity existed would have fewer parents placing stronger bets on sons rather than daughters, and being equally receptive to the idea of having girls rather than boys.
In short, smart men have nothing to fear about gender parity - on the contrary, they should embrace it. That said, it is understandable that those who managed to become the status quo because of privilege, nepotism, or deception rather than actual merit, may worry about gender party, or any other intervention that reduces the gap between talent and achievement. To anyone who got to the top without deserving it (which tends to exclude both competent women and men) meritocracy is a threat.
In this post I have deliberately avoided any reference to the moral or social justice case for gender parity. Not because it doesn’t matter (it does), or because I don’t care about it (I do), but because it is clear to me that many people are simply not motivated enough by this argument. So perhaps appealing to their instrumental, pragmatic, and selfish interests is a better way to open their eyes.
