A Threat To Workplace Equality, The Reversal Of Roe V. Wade Calls Organizations To Action

Will the overturn of Roe v. Wade have implications for gender equality in the workplace? While the Supreme Court decision is bound to penalize women’s health rights, it can also negatively affect the work culture. A slow-moving effort—men are still paid more and are more likely to hold managerial roles, yet women are better educated—closing the gender gap remains an elusive goal.

Notwithstanding recent gains, generalization after generalization continue to define women’s abilities, duties and aspirations, each a verdict on what a woman can and should do. It is this web of deeply held beliefs that the 50-year-old-precedent reversal will buttress, giving bias sharper contours and inequality another “go.”

Turning The Clock Back On Bias

In concluding that the Constitution does not grant women control over their bodies, Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion refuels the narrative of the ineffective female decision-maker.

Evidence that women are as capable as, if not more competent than men—especially under pressure or in the face of moral dilemmas—is irrelevant. The belief that women shirk responsibility and are not self-reliant remains widespread.

Still today, women are perceived to lack the ability to manage business challenges and make complex decisions—a dangerous view that unfairly holds them back. By curbing women's rights, the Supreme Court offers those prone to embrace these biased, outmoded notions more authoritative proof that women should not be trusted.

But the Justices’ pronouncement does more than restore the narrative that women lack decision-making abilities. Framing women's health as secondary to their role of caregivers, the opinion also reinforces those generalizations that dictate what women should be and how they should act.

In the workplace, a woman who doesn't display the traits of a nurturer is neither likable nor suitable. Thus, a female manager who is blunt and self-confident may be judged incapable of creating consensus. In contrast, her male equivalent will be viewed as having charisma. What's uniquely disadvantageous in this case is that, on the one hand, the reversal of Roe v. Wade may compel women who want to progress in their careers to overstate agentic qualities. But on the other, since the decision reinforces the stereotype that women are first and foremost caregivers, it also increases the likelihood that women who display agentic attributes will be seen as unfit.

It shouldn’t go unnoticed that the Supreme Court decision may also bolster the public’s acceptance of traditional gender differences. A slump toward the past can be expected because the legal frame the Justices tapped into—originalism—underscores a form of moral judgment that touts authority and the old order as inherently ethical.

Whether or not the evoked past is one where some groups lacked liberties, rights and constitutional protections while others had disproportionate power and influence is only a detail. That is, Alito’s opinion not only ignores the many forms of discrimination women had to overcome. It also casts an aura of rightness over that history.

Calling Organizations To Action

If the old order is inherently ethical, women are bad decision-makers and their chief responsibility is to play caregiver, what is there to fix?

A lot.

Simply put, backtracking decades of legal precedent and inviting bias, the Roe v. Wade reversal eviscerates the goal of a more inclusive workplace. Unless companies act swiftly, the current gender gap may quickly widen.

Fostering Anti-Bias. To weaken prejudice, a counter-narrative is necessary. Companies can foster anti-bias by offering as many exemplars of the value women contribute as the stereotypical generalizations that shape the workplace. But such storytelling shouldn't amount to opportunistic or glib PR statements.

Instead, rather than talking about how their policies benefit women, organizations must tell the story of how women’s contributions strengthen their business. And they must do so in a way that vanquishes specific stereotypes. Whether by enabling dialogue, connecting stakeholders, supporting education, celebrating efforts or highlighting milestones, the workplace culture must give women full voice.

Simultaneously, the obstacles in the way of equal opportunities, the changes needed and how different parties can contribute to progress—should all become the object of public brainstorming.

Finally, organizations must help document and narrate the risks women face in a societal culture that doesn't afford equal rights. Not only would such insights raise awareness of the dangers women face, but they would also shed light on how these risks practically affect women’s lives.

Mitigating Hostility. In the states where abortion will become illegal, women face significant health and privacy risks. But, regardless of their place of residence, all women may be exposed to closer scrutiny, harder choices and greater bias.

Therefore it’s imperative that workplace policies take into account the growing hostility women are likely to encounter.

Changes to current provisions should include relocation and remote work arrangements, additional privacy protections, strong protections against workplace harassment, comprehensive healthcare benefits, parental leave accommodations that allow women and men to more effectively co-share caregiver responsibilities, extra well-being resources, career and family counseling, as well as safeguards that guarantee women against the prejudice-fueled subtle demotions they may face after maternity leave.

Expanding Representation. While companies have expanded their focus on inclusion, they still have a way to go before achieving a genuinely diverse workforce—especially across managerial ranks. This lag has serious implications when it comes to deconstructing the many stereotypes that women face in the work environment. Since role requirements take on the characteristics of their most frequent tenants, not only is representation an inspiring goal but a prerequisite to equal opportunities.

To make strides in this direction, organizations must double down on efforts to reach out to minorities, use more objective criteria for their hiring and career decisions, and reframe the belief that these initiatives challenge meritocracy. Indeed, closing the current gaps will also require realizing that there cannot be true merit in a workplace affected by systemic differences.

Creating Inclusive Belonging. As companies make strides in representation, retaining and engaging minority employees will depend on their ability to foster a genuine sense of belonging. On this front, a variety of efforts are critical—from education and awareness of how bias works to dialogue, collaboration, voice, inclusive decision-making, shared values, purpose activation, and others.

Above all, organizations must dig deep into their culture to identify the behaviors, mindsets, and situations that make them exclusionary. Only by shedding light on these blind spots can they uproot the mechanisms that “gentrify” and turn bias into the acceptable norm.