The so-called ‘opt-out phenomenon’ refers to women being successful in obtaining qualifications and securing their first posts in many professions in the western world, including education, but then not appearing in such numbers in the upper echelons of the organizational hierarchy. This disparity has been put down to the individual choices of women to ‘opt out’ as a rejection of masculine work values; or a preference for other ways of working which are family friendly such as part time work or small- business ownership; or that they see ambition and achievement as masculine not feminine desires (Belkin, 2003; Catalyst, 2004; Lyness and Judiesch, 2001).
However, other research posits that women and men are equally likely to be interested in challenging work, but often out of a ‘benevolent sexism’ which seeks to ‘protect’ them, they are given work which is less challenging and less likely to help them achieve higher positions (Galinsky et al., 2003; King, 2008; King et al., 2012; Moya, Glick, Expósito, de Lemus, and Hart, 2007; Ng, Eby, Sorenson and Feldman, 2005). This benevolent sexism acts to thwart women’s aspirations especially as it is suggested that women may often need more explicit support than men before applying for promotions or taking on higher level work likely to lead to advancement (Hoobler et al., 2014).
A question often raised asks whether a group specific approach or a generic approach to equality, diversity and inclusion is preferable. A focus on a specific group such as women provides an in-depth understanding of the views and needs of those within the group not otherwise heard or identified in generic approaches when considering diversity. However, looking at a single group can essentialise that group and prioritise its needs in a manner which improves the situation for neither all in the workforce nor all of those in the single group. Rather than society becoming more equal overall, the balance of power just shifts from one group (or sub-group) to another. The use of intersectionality in research can embrace both the specific and generic approaches avoiding setting up competing pressure groups and seeking instead improvement for all (Lumby with Coleman, 2007; Shakeshaft, 2010).