Why do people resist gender gap efforts

Many organisations continue to invest heavily in gender diversity initiatives – new programmes, new targets, new training – all aimed at closing persistent gaps in representation. Yet as Katie Pisa points out in her conversation with Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Elinor Flynn, on The Why Podcast, these initiatives often face resistance even among those who sincerely value fairness. Why does support fall short?

According to Elinor, the answer lies not in who people are, but in how they explain the gender gap itself. Drawing on years of research and reflecting on the lived reality of workplace conversations, she argues that employees act like “naïve scientists”, forming everyday theories to make sense of why women remain underrepresented. These explanations often matter more than people’s political views, identities or the values they claim to hold.

Three everyday stories that shape support

Elinor outlines three dominant explanations people rely on. The first is that women face organisational barriers – bias in hiring or promotion, inflexible cultures and expectations that favour an “always on” worker. This narrative places responsibility on the organisation, not on women.

The second explanation points to dispositional factors – assumptions about confidence, risk-taking or leadership style. While these explanations still view the gender gap as internal to women, Elinor notes that people often consider traits less controllable, meaning responsibility is higher than in the barriers narrative but not absolute.

The third, and most powerful, explanation is personal choice. Often people say women “prefer” different roles, “choose” more balanced jobs or “opt out” of demanding career stages. To many listeners, these phrases will sound familiar; they echo everyday workplace conversations.

But as Elinor highlights, framing inequality as the result of choice carries a strong assumption of control. When people believe choices stem from personal preference, they infer women could have acted differently. This increases the sense that women themselves are responsible for the outcomes and reduces willingness to support initiatives aimed at addressing structural issues.

Why “choice” explanations are especially damaging

Across the conversation, Flynn emphasises that “choice” narratives can appear neutral or even benevolent. Leaders may say, “this lifestyle isn’t for everyone,” or that early career workers must “say yes to everything”. Gender is never mentioned, yet the implication is that those who leave simply did not want it enough.

Such language obscures the constraints women face: unpredictable hours, cultures of overwork and the biological and social realities of caregiving. When these constraints are reframed as preferences, inequality becomes an individual matter rather than a structural one. Support for diversity initiatives then collapses because the initiatives appear misaligned with the “real” problem.

How organisations can respond

For Elinor, this insight has practical implications. She encourages leaders to examine the language used to explain turnover, career paths and expectations. Small shifts – such as describing overwork cultures as structural issues rather than personal preferences – can reshape how employees interpret responsibility.

She also highlights the value of predictability, not just flexibility. Drawing on examples discussed in the episode, she suggests that redesigning teams and workflows along more predictable lines can reduce the burden that disproportionately falls on women.

Ultimately, progress on gender equality depends as much on the stories people tell and how they tell them as on the policies organisations adopt. Until leaders understand and address these everyday explanations, even the best designed initiatives will struggle to gain support.