Who supports gender equality initiatives in companies? Unveiling the role of emotions

Efforts to promote gender equality in the workplace, such as affirmative action and gender quotas, often receive mixed reactions. While many people recognize the need for such policies, not everyone supports them equally. In particular, men’s support for gender equality initiatives varies significantly, raising an important question: What drives some men to support these initiatives while others remain resistant?

Research on gender equality has traditionally focused on cognitively driven motivations (e.g., making a relevant business case for equality) (2), much to the neglect of emotional forces (3). However, our latest study takes a different approach (1). It explores how emotions, particularly guilt, can affect people’s attitudes towards gender equality measures.

What our research found

In a team of researchers from France and Canada we examined whether the degree of masculinity or femininity in a person’s traits plays a role in shaping their feelings of collective guilt about gender inequality. We conducted two separate studies to analyze the link between gender traits, guilt, and support for affirmative action.

In the first study, we focused on men and found that those who embrace traditionally ascribed feminine traits (e.g., empathy, warmth, cooperation) were more likely to experience collective guilt about gender inequality. This guilt, in turn, made them more supportive of affirmative action programs for women.

In the second study, we expanded the research to both men and women in a workplace setting. We found that masculinity was negatively associated with guilt, meaning people with stronger masculine traits were less likely to feel responsible for gender inequality and, as a result, were less supportive of gender quotas. It is noteworthy, that collective guilt for received privileges influenced both men and women’s willingness to back stronger equality measures.

One key takeaway is that support for gender equality is not simply a matter of being male or female, but rather, how much an individual identifies with traditionally ascribed masculine or feminine traits. Our findings suggest that masculinity traits are negatively related to recognizing gender-based privilege, whereas femininity encouraged support for affirmative action by the mechanisms of emotions.

The key practical implications

Our findings promise at least three practical implications for both students preparing for the workforce and businesses aiming to create more inclusive environments.

Firstly, it’s not only the good reasons that convince us, but also how we feel about it. Therefore, organizations which would like to foster support, should not only make a business case for gender equality but also acknowledge the emotional factors that influence support for diversity efforts. Training programs can help individuals understand how emotional responses like guilt can be constructive rather than defensive.

Secondly, businesses looking to increase gender diversity in leadership should focus on cultivating empathy, emotional intelligence, and inclusive decision-making skills in their leaders. Encouraging the development of traditionally “feminine” traits can help men become more active allies in gender equality efforts.

Thirdly, rather than viewing guilt as a negative emotion, workplaces and universities can use it as a catalyst for change. For instance, when individuals recognize past injustices, they are more likely to take action to correct them.

Some final thoughts

While this research is still in progress, the study can already offer some insights into the emotional underpinnings of gender equality efforts. It promises new ways to think about what motivates people to support (or to resist) affirmative action policies. Our work-in-progress study will dig deeper into these findings and their implications. Stay tuned for upcoming discussions and articles on this topic!

References

(1) Under review – 2025 paper by Fabian Bernhard, Eddy Ng, Sabine Jentjens

(2) Cullen, P and Murphy, MP. (2018). Leading the debate for the business case for gender equality, perilous for whom? Gender, Work & Organization, 25(2), 110-26 - https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12199

Hahn, T, Preuss, L, Pinkse, J and Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of management review, 39(4), 463-87 - https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341

(3) Baumeister, RF, Vohs, KD, Nathan DeWall, C and Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and social psychology review, 11(2), 167-203 - https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814 - https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

Trentham, S and Larwood, L. (1998). Gender discrimination and the workplace: An examination of rational bias theory. Sex Roles, 38(1-2), 1-28 - https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:141445242

Wang, CS, Whitson, JA, King, BG and Ramirez, RL. (2023). Social movements, collective identity, and workplace allies: The labeling of gender equity policy changes. Organization Science, 34(6), 2508-25 - https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1492

Photo by The Jopwell Collection via Unsplash