Barriers to Career Growth

Just by being Black, the level of latitude you're given for behaviour – especially behaviour deemed "bad" – is often completely different. The consequences are harsher and the scrutiny is sharper. Take disciplinary matters, for example. Black employees are often judged more harshly for the same behaviours as their white counterparts. A Black professional might be labelled “difficult”, “angry”, “intimidating”, or “unprofessional” for expressing frustration in a meeting, while a white colleague might be excused as “passionate” or “assertive”. You know the type of comments – “Elizabeth is just expressing how she feels,” or “Johnny was just a bit hot under the collar.” The disparity isn’t just anecdotal – it’s backed up by research into workplace racial bias. Then there’s career progression. Black employees are frequently held to higher standards to earn the same recognition. Feedback like, “You need to prove yourself more” or “be more of a team player” is often levelled at those who have already delivered exceptional results. Meanwhile, others are promoted based on potential or likeability rather than consistent performance. Not sure if this is (or has) happened in your workplace? 1) Look at patterns in employee relations cases – Are Black employees disproportionately disciplined or receiving harsher feedback compared to their peers in similar roles? 2) Examine promotion criteria – Are Black employees expected to overperform just to be considered for opportunities, while others get ahead based on vague ideas of potential or even subpar performance? How do performance and potential ratings for Black employees compare with others? 3) Observe how behaviours are labelled – Is there a difference in the language used to describe similar actions? Are words like “angry” or “unapproachable” disproportionately applied to Black colleagues? For Black women, how are their traits described compared to non-Black women? For Black men, what “advice” is given under the guise of mentorship to ensure they aren’t perceived as “intimidating” or “scary” – particularly when they express frustration or anger? To address this, the first step is noticing the patterns (or not dismissing or acting defensively when it’s pointed out), the second is to question and avoid making assumptions that it is an “unfounded accusation” and the third? Well, that’s up to you. You can either take action or ignore it. I say that only because too many organisations are still struggling to get past the first step 🤷🏾♀️ 📹 Sterling K. Brown

Black women are the most educated demographic in America. Black women are the most underpaid professionals in America. Read both sentences again. Both are true. At the same time. In the same workforce. About the same people. That is not a coincidence. That is a system. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧™ They told us education was the equalizer. So we got the degrees. They told us credentials would open doors. So we collected them. They told us if we just worked harder, stayed longer, proved ourselves more—the money would follow. The money followed. It just followed someone else. Black women hold more college degrees than any other demographic group. We enroll at higher rates. We graduate at higher rates. We credential ourselves into debt trying to close a gap that was never about qualifications. And still. A Black woman with a bachelor's degree earns less than a white man with no degree at all. The system doesn't reward our education. It extracts from it. Every degree we earn becomes another year of underpayment they justify with "market rate." Every certification becomes another skill they get at a discount. Every credential becomes another line on a resume that never translates to the compensation it commands for everyone else. We're not under-educated. We're under-invoiced. The solution was never another degree. It was documentation of the value we already create. It was calculating our replacement cost. It was running the math they never wanted us to see. They built a system where our brilliance subsidizes their payroll. Time to run your own numbers. The Extraction Calculator™ estimates the gap between what you built and what they paid. Five questions. One estimated range. 90 seconds. This is not your Invoice Number™. It's the reason to get one. Link in comments. Thank You; It's True™ #BlackWomensWealthLab #DocumentEverything #TheEducationExtraction

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time. 

Your competence at work is judged in seconds. Even when you over-deliver, you can be underestimated. Every day, false assumptions about you are made: — Polite = Weak — Older = Not agile — A foreign accent = Less capable — Introverted =  Not a strong leader — Woman =  Softer voice, less authority It's not just unfair. It's exhausting. So the question is: How do you beat biases without changing who you are? Here’s what I recommend: 𝟭. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 → Speak about impact, not effort. → Articulate your value proposition. →“Here’s the problems I solve. Here's how. Here’s the result."  If no one knows what you bring to the table, they won’t invite you to it. 𝟮. 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 Silent excellence is wasted potential. → Speak up when it feels risky. → Build real not just strategic relationships. → Share insights where people are paying attention. You don’t need to be loud. You need to be seen. 𝟯. 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 The traits that trigger assumptions? Those are your edge. → Introverted? That’s deep listening. → Accent? That’s global perspective. Don’t flatten yourself to fit. Distinguish yourself to lead. 𝟰. 𝗢𝘄𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 → Say “I recommend” not "I think.” → Hold eye contact. Take up space. → Act like your presence belongs (even when others haven’t caught up.) Confidence isn’t volume. It’s grounding. Bias is everywhere. But perception can be changed. Don't let other people's false assumptions define you. Do you agree? ➕ Follow Deena Priest for strategic career insights. 📌Join my newsletter to build a career grounded in progress, peace and pay.

The silent killer of careers isn’t lack of talent. It’s invisibility. At McKinsey, I once worked with a young analyst - sharp, diligent, always on top of deadlines. Her work was excellent. But in team rooms, she was quiet. In client meetings, she rarely spoke up. For months, leaders saw her as “reliable support” but not as someone to bet big on. Then one day, in a tense client workshop, things went off track. The partner asked a tough question. Silence in the room. And she stepped in. Clear, structured, confident. The client nodded. The meeting shifted. From that moment, everything changed for her. She wasn’t just the “hardworking analyst” anymore. She was trusted with bigger roles, direct client exposure, and faster growth. That’s the truth about careers. Most professionals assume promotions come from years of steady output. In reality, they’re often triggered by a handful of defining moments. The question isn’t just “Are you working hard?” It’s “Are you showing up when it matters most?”

Participatory Research Toolkit: Empowering Communities to Measure Social Norms (#2, Research) This toolkit is a very rich resource for practitioners. Developed by #UNFPA and #UNICEF, provides invaluable resources to achieve this. It marks the culmination of SBC research conduct over many years. Why Participatory Methods? Participatory research methods empower participants by engaging them in discussions about complex and sensitive topics. This toolkit brings together nine participatory tools, offering practical guidance and examples to qualitatively measure social norms. Key Tools and Their Uses: Body Mapping: Visual aids help assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors concerning the body and mind. This method is particularly useful for understanding experiences related to physical and psychosocial factors. Cannot Do, Will Not Do, Should Not Do: Categorizes behaviors to reveal the reasons behind restrictions. This helps in identifying structural barriers, personal norms, and social norms. Complete-the-Story: Uses vignettes to allow participants to indirectly express their attitudes and intentions. This method is effective for discussing sensitive topics without asking participants to directly disclose their experiences. Free Listing: Participants list terms and concepts related to a given prompt, revealing how they conceptualize specific domains. This method is useful for formative research and understanding attitudes and norms. Gender Boxes and Gender Jumble: These tools measure gender norms and examine how gender impacts attitudes and behaviors. They are essential for research focused on the existence and influence of gender norms. Lifeline: Identifies normative cultural practices and provides a timeline of key life events. This tool is useful for research using a life-course perspective. Social Network Mapping: Visually represents reference groups across different levels of the social ecological model. This tool helps understand communication flow and social support within networks. 2x2 Tables for Social Norms: Measures the components of social norms (injunctive and descriptive norms, behavioral expectations, attitudes, and social rewards and sanctions) to understand norms on a deeper level. Real-World Applications: What is great about this toolkit is that provides examples of the tools have been used: .g. how Body Mapping was used to understand the physical and psychosocial risks of FGM in Ethiopia. This comprehensive guide shows that by leveraging these participatory methods, we can design more effective, culturally relevant programs that foster positive social change. My congratulations to the authors for pulling this incredibly useful set of tools together. Imagine using a tool called “Gender Jumble”. I can’t wait! #SocialNorms #ParticipatoryResearch #CommunityEngagement #BehaviorChange #ProgramDesign #UNFPA #UNICEF #TransformNorms Naveera Amjad Cäcilia Riederer

Am I really about to write this…….  It’s so disheartening to see that some age-old biases still rear their ugly heads in the professional sphere. Today, I had a conversation with a BRILLIANT senior candidate in the events industry, a single mother with an impressive skill set and an undeniable passion for her work. Yet, despite her qualifications and expertise, she found herself repeatedly overlooked for senior roles simply because she needed a modicum of flexibility to balance her career with her family responsibilities. Let's be clear: this isn't about a lack of talent or capability. This is about systemic biases that continue to disadvantage women, particularly mothers, in the workplace. It's a tale as old as time. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, remote work and flexible schedules became the norm for many industries. Companies adapted overnight to accommodate these changes, recognizing that productivity and performance are not confined to traditional office hours or locations. Yet, even as we navigate this new landscape, it seems that old prejudices die hard. It's time for a reality check. Women, especially mothers, should not have to choose between advancing their careers and being present for their families. The persistent gender gap in leadership positions is not due to a lack of qualified candidates but rather a failure of organizations to dismantle outdated norms and biases. When we overlook talented individuals simply because they prioritise caregiving responsibilities, we perpetuate a cycle of inequality that harms not only those directly affected but also stifles innovation and progress within our organizations. It's up to all of us – leaders, colleagues, and allies to challenge gender stereotypes and advocate for equity in the workplace. In the end, diversity and inclusion are not just buzzwords – they are fundamental principles that drive innovation, foster creativity, and propel companies forward. It's time to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all and create a world where talent, not gender, determines success! Rant over... but it truly struck a nerve. It's infuriating to witness, especially when exceptional candidates lose out. But mark my words, the company wise enough to hire her for her next role will undoubtedly emerge as the ultimate victors in the end! #GenderEquality #WorkplaceEquity #InclusionMatters #EmpowerWomen Anna Whitehouse

You know it. I know it. Return to office isn't neutral. It disproportionately impacts women, especially mothers and caregivers. I was honored to share my thoughts with Taylor Telford for her latest The Washington Post piece exploring how aggressive RTO policies are pushing women's progress backwards. (Link in comments) As I shared in this piece, it is not a "choice" when the options are so limited. Women are once again finding themselves pushed out of the paid workforce. Some key takeaways from the article: 👉 After decades of gradual progress, the gender wage gap is widening again. In 2024, women earned just 80.9 cents for every dollar earned by men, dropping from 84 cents in 2022. 👉 For many women, especially those with caregiving responsibilities, rigid office policies are forcing "choices": accept demotions, take pay cuts, or leave entirely. 👉 Turnover among women at companies with strict in-office mandates is nearly THREE TIMES that of men. 👉 The lack of affordable, accessible childcare continues to widen the pay gap. 👉 Policies like RTO and limiting flexibility are stagnating women who feel forced to step off the ladder towards career growth to manage caregiving. This is exactly why at WRK/360, our mission is to help workplaces ACTUALLY be family and caregiving friendly. Not just in rhetoric, but in policy, culture, and practice. The dynamics the article highlights aren’t hypothetical; they are the exact challenges we work with our clients on daily. ✔️ We help companies design policies (e.g., hybrid, flexible schedules, core hours) that allow for collaboration without penalizing caregivers ✔️We coach leadership on equitable performance criteria so that remote or hybrid contributors are not implicitly devalued ✔️We partner with organizations to embed family-supportive programs that retain talent. HR and leadership teams: 👉 Still considering an RTO mandate? Think about what this really means for women and caregivers. 👉 Already have one in place? Run an audit on your turnover. How has this policy impacted men vs. women? Caregivers vs. non-caregivers? What talent are you losing? Together, we can protect the progress made over decades and stop pushing women and caregivers out of the paid workforce.

🏃♀️ Imagine a study on marathon performance that doesn't mention some runners are carrying 50-pound backpacks. That's the 2025 Women in the Workplace report from Mckinsey and LeanIn 60 pages on why women "want promotions less." Zero mentions of childcare, eldercare, or the invisible second shift. Their own data shows women and men are equally committed to their careers, over 90% on every measure. Young women under 30 has even more ambitious than young men. Latinas are the most ambitious group in the entire study. 🤔 So where does this "ambition gap" come from? Buried on page 10, in a small box, they note that women who decline promotion cite "personal obligations" at nearly double the rate of men. Then they move on. No follow-up. No analysis. No asking the obvious question: What are these "personal obligations"? 💔 I'll tell you what they are. 👉 They're the 2am feeding before your 8am presentation. 👉 The school pickup that can't be rescheduled. 👉 The elderly parent who needs a doctor's appointment during your board meeting. 👉 The mental load of remembering everyone's everything while being told you "lack ambition." The report measured ambition without measuring the invisible infrastructure women are running at home. 👉 Here's what the report should have asked: ⁉️ Do women with equal childcare support want promotions at the same rate as men? ⁉️ Do women with flexible work arrangements show the same career drive? ⁉️ Does the "ambition gap" exist in countries with subsidized childcare? (Spoiler: Research says no, no, and no.) Instead, they concluded women are less ambitious and moved on to solutions that don't address the actual problem. This isn't just a missed opportunity. It's a misdirection! ❌ Because when you diagnose "ambition gap" instead of "care gap," you get solutions like "women need more confidence" instead of "workplaces need to stop penalizing caregiving." You get women blamed for systemic failures. 📊 Here's what an honest report would say: ✅ Women aren't less ambitious. They're doing two jobs while being evaluated as if they're doing one. ✅ The workplace wasn't designed for people with caregiving responsibilities. It was designed for people with wives. ✅ Until we redesign the system, we'll keep "discovering" that women don't want what men want, when really, women just can't afford what men take for granted. That's exactly why we built "From Hidden Talent to Visible Leader", because the women I work with aren't lacking ambition. They're lacking a system that sees their full contribution. Next cohort starts end of Jan 2026. 👉 Join the waitlist: https://lnkd.in/gx7CpGGR 👊 Because women don't have an ambition problem. The workplace has a measurement problem, and it starts with reports that count everything except what actually matters.