Image by HBR/ EschCollection/Getty Images

Our initial exploration led us to a publication from Harvard Business Review (HBR) in April 2024. It reported that in the non-profit sector in the United States, where the majority of employees are women, female representation at the top is often lacking. The publication also revealed that the higher the revenue, the more often men are in charge. We were curious to see how this plays out in the Netherlands, so we conducted research on fifty ANBIs (Public Benefit Organizations) with the highest revenue within the non-profit sector, specifically in education and healthcare. These are sectors in our country where it has been proven that more women work than men.

And to go straight to the conclusions: we see the same pattern in the Netherlands. Despite the fact that the majority of employees in these sectors at all levels are women, the percentage of women in the leadership of these organizations is also lower in the Netherlands. As in the American HBR study, we observed a decline in the percentage of women in the upper layers of the organization. We also found that in the Netherlands, the choice for the highest leadership position is less often made in favor of female talent as the organization grows larger and generates more revenue.

You could say that although more women than men work in these organizations and they are eligible for leadership roles, they are more often stuck below the top. This phenomenon is also known as the Glass Escalator Effect: men seem to stand on a symbolic escalator to the top, while that escalator is missing for women, hindering their career progression. As a result, men have easier access to top positions, even when they work in industries where they are underrepresented. Why is this the case?

The HBR study suggests that this symbolic escalator for men is due to unconscious biases: the unconscious belief that men are better leaders and the assumption that as an organization grows larger, men are best suited to manage it. The association of male traits with leadership qualities remains strong (albeit unconsciously), and we see this reflected in the results of our mindbug tests in the Netherlands. These tests show that 81% of participants (n=19,004, both men and women) have an unconscious preference for a man as a leader, even though 96% of them indicated beforehand that they do not make distinctions in gender for leadership positions. Additionally, men who take on traditionally female roles (such as becoming a nurse) are often excessively praised for doing so. Click here for more details.

The Glass Escalator Effect in the Netherlands: Our Research

Our research within the same sectors in the Netherlands confirmed the American results, as shown in the figures below. First, we see that the overrepresentation of women in these sectors is not reflected in the boards of these organizations: the percentage of women in the top remains below or around 50%. We also observe that the percentage of women in leadership positions within the sector decreases as revenue increases. This is evident in the comparison between the top 10 organizations with the highest revenue and the ten organizations with the lowest revenue.

* Reported by 16 out of 25 organizations ** Reported by 9 out of 25 organizations

Lastly, our research shows that the overrepresentation of women in these sectors does not result in a higher number of female chairs of the board of directors. In fact, the likelihood of this decreases as revenue grows. This percentage also remains below or around 50%.

These are striking results given the consistent overrepresentation of women in the non-profit sector [1]. In summary, we conclude that the highest positions, even within ANBI organizations, are disproportionately awarded to men, despite the presence of many female employees and talents in these sectors. The ‘glass escalator’ phenomenon also exists in the Netherlands.

Finally, this: In our research and this article, we focused on the ‘glass escalator’ effect, highlighting the difference in opportunities for men and women in the non-profit sector in the Netherlands. The HBR article also explored this effect in the context of ethnicity. You can find that HBR study and the recommendations they provided here.

[1] Explanation of the general male-female distribution

Although every ANBI organization reports on the composition of its board and chairs in their annual report or on their website, not every organization reports on the general male-female ratio. The organizations that do report on this show a clear picture: the majority of employees are women. To validate these figures, we compared our data with publicly available statistics for the sectors we studied.

Image Juan Moyano/ Getty Images through Harvard Business Review 

Naar aanleiding van haar observaties dat veel organisaties nog steeds worstelen met het werken aan meer diversiteit, zet Esther in dit artikel de noodzaak, kracht en uitdagingen ervan op een rij. Diversiteit: Briljant of Belemmerend? Onze geschiedenis is doordrenkt van ideeën die aanvankelijk werden weggewuifd, maar uiteindelijk cruciaal bleken voor vooruitgang. Hieronder enkele historische voorbeelden van revolutionaire denkers die eerst werden bespot voordat de waarde van hun ideeën breed werd erkend:

• Josephine Cochrane invented the dishwasher in 1886, but her invention was ridiculed as useless because women would supposedly have nothing left to do.
• Svante Arrhenius first calculated the potential warming effects of carbon dioxide in 1896, but his findings were hardly taken seriously at the time.
• In the 1960s, doctors who warned about the dangers of smoking were mocked by their colleagues, who promoted smoking as healthy, stress-reducing, and even a remedy for asthma.

This list shows that brilliant discoveries, which we now utilize, were dismissed as ridiculous at the time of their inception. Their findings did not align with the prevailing views of the time, and the majority hindered progress by ridiculing innovative thinkers.

The resistance to change, a human trait as I will explain shortly, led in many cases to delaying or even blocking developments that ultimately would have benefited society as a whole. This raises the question of what progress we are currently blocking due to resistance to change—both in society at large and within organizations.

How Diversity Can Transform Your Organization – If You Allow It

In today’s complex world, the ability to integrate diverse perspectives is crucial for the success of organizations. Effectively dealing with the many challenges we face, both internally and externally, requires careful exploration and development of options to ultimately make well-considered decisions. To make these decisions in a sound way, it is essential for organizations to bring in diverse viewpoints by actively building diverse teams. This diversity ensures that all options are thoroughly weighed and that decisions are more widely supported.

Countless studies have increasingly demonstrated the value of diversity in teams. Research from reputable institutions such as McKinsey, Glassdoor, Deloitte, and others [1] shows that organizations open to diverse perspectives perform significantly better. Not only do they excel in innovation and decision-making, but they also expand their market share and increase customer satisfaction. Furthermore, such organizations are more successful at attracting and retaining talent, as they create an environment where different ideas are valued and employees feel challenged and supported.

Despite the compelling evidence of the benefits, diversity remains a sensitive and often difficult theme to implement in many organizations. This sometimes seems due to a lack of understanding of the advantages, but more often to the challenge of truly embracing and integrating diverse perspectives into the organizational culture. Finally, it also requires courage and perseverance from leaders to implement this change, leading to a worthwhile reward: a more resilient, innovative, and successful organization.

Image by HBR Staff – through Harvard Business Review

The Diversity Paradox: Understanding that What is Good Does Not Come Easily

If the benefits of diversity are so clear, why does it remain a difficult topic in many organizations? This phenomenon is known as the “diversity paradox.” Despite overwhelming evidence from numerous studies showing that diversity leads to better innovation, decision-making, and competitive advantage, many organizations and individuals remain hesitant to fully embrace it. This reluctance stems from a deeply ingrained tendency to choose the familiar: ease and stability, even if it means ignoring and not reaping the proven benefits of diversity.

There are two key reasons that explain this paradox:

Power and Preservation of the Status Quo
One major factor explaining the diversity paradox is the fear of change within the established order and the potential loss of power and status that comes with it. This resistance, driven by self-interest, hinders progress and blocks new ideas and developments that could actually lead to more growth and success for the organization as a whole.

An example of this was the resistance within Eindhoven University of Technology (TU Eindhoven) to plans aimed at addressing the gender imbalance among academic staff. For years, various plans failed to take off, until as of July 1, 2019, professor positions were opened exclusively to women for the first six months. The majority group fiercely resisted: by late October 2019, as many as 54 men had filed complaints with the anti-discrimination bureau Radar and the Dutch Human Rights Commission (CVRM). Although the plan had to be adjusted slightly, it largely proceeded as intended. The majority group had to give up its resistance, and now TU Eindhoven fills half of its vacancies with women.

Unilever also demonstrated that if the will is truly there, it is possible to achieve 50% of top management roles being held by women in a short period of time. Similarly, the supervisory board of Wilde Ganzen recently chose three new members with culturally diverse backgrounds to better align the board with Wilde Ganzen’s vision.

Human Nature and the Desire for Comfort
A second factor explaining the diversity paradox is the natural tendency of humans to feel more comfortable in homogeneous groups, where there are fewer conflicts and challenges. This sense of comfort is historically rooted, as people traditionally survived in close-knit, like-minded communities. In a prehistoric context, belonging to a homogeneous group with common norms and values was essential for your survival, safety, and cooperation. This evolutionary preference for homogeneity has persisted through the centuries, causing the unconscious brain to still feel more at ease in groups where it sees itself reflected in others.

Although people often say they seek more diversity, research shows that their brain feels more at peace in environments with like-minded individuals, even if such an environment leads to less effective decision-making. This is why the unconscious brain, which governs most of your daily decisions, prefers people who are similar to you. It’s also the reason why new employees in such homogeneous environments often quickly adapt to prevailing norms and behaviors. Does this sound familiar?

• If around 2010 you allowed working from home to help employees better and more efficiently combine their private lives and ambitions, thereby proving to motivate and value employees more, you were seen as a weak manager. So, you didn’t allow working from home either.
• If all team members say ‘yes’ and ‘amen’ to the manager, you swallow your own feedback that points in a different direction.

We unconsciously want to belong. Your unconscious brain, perhaps more often than you think, prefers the comfort of a homogeneous team over pursuing better results for the organization. So, we often unconsciously choose comfort, which means the benefits of diversity are ignored.

Where Does Your Organization Stand? Will You Find Your Galileo?

Do you recognize the above reasons for the diversity paradox, either within your organization or within yourself? Do you recognize the possible resistance from the established order? Are there unwritten rules in place that benefit them but not others or the organization as a whole?

I still remember that at the beginning of my career (and with me, many women) I got entangled in the unwritten rules about motherhood and ambition. The established order expressed that it wasn’t considered normal for a mother to work full-time, and they also maintained the rule that you couldn’t become a manager if you didn’t work full-time. Nowadays, I hear from many newly promoted women that they receive comments suggesting they got the promotion only because a woman had to be appointed. Especially when that remark comes from the mouths of those in power in your organization, it is a very harmful comment and an unconscious attempt to maintain or restore old interests.

Do you also recognize the destructive unconscious preference in your organization for people who resemble those at the top? This is evident in who gets hired for teams, what evaluations they receive, and who has or gets promotion opportunities—and who doesn’t. But it also shows in who is listened to during meetings and how work is distributed within the team. Especially in the Netherlands, this remains a major challenge because most Dutch people still believe they are unaffected by unconscious biases (if you want to learn more about this, read my blog).

The future of your organization depends heavily on the ability to harness the opportunities diversity brings. How is this going in your organization? Which people and which unwritten rules are hindering progress? What difficult conversations need to be had, and what tough decisions need to be made? How can you make these topics discussable with one another? These are crucial questions, as the future of your organization is at stake.

[1] McKinsey (2015, 2018, 2020, 2023), Glassdoor (2014), Deloitte (2022), Boston Consulting Group (2018), Center for Talent Innovation (2013), EEOC (2016), Credit Suisse (2016), PwC (2019), HBR (2016)