Abstract
How do organisational leaders attend to gender in discussions of men’s flexible work and what are the implications for men’s flexible work? Twelve organisational leaders were interviewed to understand organisational factors that may affect men’s access to and use of flexible work. Workplace gender inequality is related to uneven gendered divisions of work and care. Flexible work has the potential to allow for more equal sharing of care, but it is underused by men. Participants displayed an unexpected pattern during interviews – they avoided talking about men. Inductive qualitative analysis was undertaken, using thematic discourse analysis. Two broad themes were developed from the data, with participants avoiding talking about men, or discussing men and women with regard to traditional gender roles. The themes were found to conform to the theory of gender-blind sexism. Furthermore, we propose an extension of the theory due to a novel finding of gender being maximised. Gender-blind sexism contributes to current understandings of gender inequality, particularly in situations purporting to be gender-neutral, such as modern organisations. We suggest that leaders consider adopting gender sensitive language in order to acknowledge gender, address gender inequality, and facilitate men’s flexible work.
1. Introduction
Australian organisations are under increasing pressure to acknowledge and address workplace gender inequalities. The Australian Government requires organisations to complete a gender equality report (Workplace Gender Equality Agency, 2023a) and Australian Government (n.d.) boards have a target of 50% women as part of the national strategy to achieve gender equality. Despite these requirements, we found that people working at the highest levels of organisations avoided discussing gender. Here we present an inductive analysis of interviews with organisational leaders.
Flexible work has been described as key to enabling gender equality in the workplace by facilitating the sharing of employment and care within families (Workplace Gender Equality Agency, n.d.-b). Importantly, such claims require men to use flexible work. However, research has identified ongoing patterns of underuse of flexible work by men (Haas and Hwang, 2016; Koslowski and Kadar-Satat, 2018). One reason for men’s underuse of flexible work is associated stigma and disadvantage due to preferences for workers who are readily available to organisations (Acker, 1990; Chung, 2018; Munsch, 2016). Full-time work is also associated with masculinity, presenting challenges to men’s uptake of flexible work (Borgkvist et al., 2018; Pini and McDonald, 2008).
Leaders of organisations are a crucial element in the provision and use of flexible work, both in terms of setting policy and workplace culture. Support from leaders at the highest levels of organisations can make flexible work more available to employees, men in particular (Borgkvist et al., 2021; Sanders et al., 2015; Sandhu and Kulik, 2018). However, such high-level leaders are not typically represented in research, which instead tends to focus on employees and their immediate managers. Leaders of organisations provide a unique perspective due to having a high level of influence, but also being somewhat removed from the implementation of flexible work (Cooper and Baird, 2015). In the current study, qualitative analysis is used to investigate how leaders of organisations perceive men’s use of and access to flexible work.
It is uncommon in Australia for men to reduce or cease paid employment to accommodate caring responsibilities, which contributes to workplace gender inequality. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (2024) recent figures show that women had lower workforce participation rates than men. Among parents, on average, men reported spending double the amount of time as women on paid work, and women reported spending twice as much time as men on domestic and childcare tasks (Baxter, 2019). Men also dominate the higher levels of organisations, with women representing only 22% of Chief Executive Officers in Australia (Workplace Gender Equality Agency, 2023b); with leadership positions associated with longer working hours (Reynolds and McKinzie, 2019). This pattern, described as a ‘male-breadwinner/female-carer’ model is a particularly resilient part of Australian culture that impedes workplace gender equality (Pocock et al., 2013).
Flexible work refers to altered work arrangements designed to accommodate employees’ responsibilities outside of work (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2021; Workplace Gender Equality Agency, n.d.-b). Flexible work in Australia is governed by the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides the legal right to request (RTR) flexible working arrangements in situations where employees have caring responsibilities, a disability, are over 55 years old, and in cases of domestic violence (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2023). In practice, organisations hold responsibility for administering flexible work. Many organisations extend flexibility beyond legislative requirements; ‘all roles flex’ situations are common, as are informal flexible work arrangements.
Australian RTR policy is similar to flexible work practices in other countries where there are options for requesting reduced or altered work arrangements, such as the United Kingdom (Gatrell et al., 2013), Canada (Beglaubter, 2019), Austria (Schmidt et al., 2015), France (Lewis and Humbert, 2010), and Spain (Fernandez-Lozano, 2018). Flexible work is similar to idiosyncratic deals (Pestonik and Altmann, 2023). Australia sits within this wider context, furnished by a formal RTR flexible work arrangements but also with highly gendered patterns of workforce participation (for further information see, Cooper and Baird, 2015; Dreyfus, 2013; Pocock et al., 2013).
The current research uses data from 12 interviews with leaders of organisations in Australia. The initial research question was ‘how do organisational leaders describe men’s flexible work?’ However, there were difficulties engaging participants in discussions about men. This was an unexpected and compelling outcome of data collection and prompted an inductive research approach. Inductive research starts with data, as opposed to most published research, which is deductive and starts with existing literature and theory (Woo et al., 2017). Based on the difficulty engaging participants in discussions about men, we conducted an inductive investigation of how leaders negotiated and attended to gender during these interviews. As such, this research is presented in the format suggested by Tracy (2012). We have thus far provided an initial rationale and guiding research question. In the following sections we guide the reader through the research and analysis process. Next is the method, followed by preliminary results. These preliminary results suggest the focus for a directed literature review. Then, we present in-depth findings, followed by a discussion and conclusion.
2. Method
Data were gathered in semi-structured interviews. Participants were leaders working in the most senior role of organisations in South Australia. Participants were primarily Chief Executive Officers and State Managing Directors/Partners. Participants were decision-makers and policy-setters with respect to flexible work in their organisations and thus were highly influential to the provision and uptake of flexible work. Together the participants represented organisations with approximately 40,000 employees in South Australia. There were nine men and three women participants. This distribution is reflective of the predominance of men occupying leadership roles in Australia (Workplace Gender Equality Agency, n.d.-b). The number of participants was considered appropriate due to preliminary inspection of the data suggesting sufficient richness, with strong patterns suitable for thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2013, 2022). In addition, the sample size was deemed appropriate because the participants represent a particularly small demographic, with less than 1% of employed Australians working as chief executives or general managers (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021; Braun and Clarke, 2022). Specific employment and demographic information were not recorded to preserve participants’ anonymity; however, participants were typically white, aged in their forties or fifties, university educated, and all but one participant spoke about being a parent. The participants worked in a variety of industries, both public and private, some male dominated, and some female dominated. Recruitment was facilitated by the fifth author, in their role as Commissioner for Equal Opportunity South Australia, who used email to invite 31 members of their professional network to participate. This was a purposive sampling approach aimed at organisational leaders with some association with The Equal Opportunity Commission of South Australia and gender equality initiatives. Ethics clearance was granted by a Human Research Ethics Sub-Committee of The University of Adelaide. Participants were provided with an information sheet in the initial invitation email and again when interviews were scheduled. The participant information sheet specified that participants would be interviewed about men’s flexible work.
Interviews took place early in 2019, they were conducted face-to-face by the first author, a 39-year-old woman, in participants’ workplaces and were audio-recorded. Average interview duration was 61 minutes, with a range of 44–84 minutes. Interviews followed a semi-structured format, based on an interview guide (included in Appendix 1) that grouped questions under the following four categories: flexible work in general, flexible work for men specifically, implications of men working flexibly, and request for personal reflection. Each interview began with the question ‘How would you describe flexible work?’ to allow for clarification of the meaning of flexible work. Aside from this first question, a flexible approach to interview questions was used that allowed participants to introduce information. An unexpected feature in participants’ responses was evident in the early interviews – participants demonstrated resistance to speaking about men’s gender. After the fifth interview, revisions were made to the interview guide to increase the questions specifically referring to men. This change was designed to provide ample opportunity to discuss men. Nevertheless, the difficulty in gathering data about men persisted.
Thematic discourse analysis (TDA) was undertaken, according to Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2013) approach. TDA is primarily a thematic analysis which incorporates aspects of discourse analysis, focussing on patterns in language use and how ‘themes construct reality in particular ways’ (Braun and Clarke, 2013: 177). Analysis was conducted by the first author, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2013) six-step approach. Step 1, data familiarisation occurred through the interviews being transcribed, read, and reread. This coincided with the inductive preliminary analysis, which is described in the Preliminary Results section. Step 2, systematic data coding was completed in an inductive process using NVivo to record the researcher developed codes and the sections of the text they applied to. Coding was an iterative process, new patterns were developed into new codes, prompting review of previous data. Overlapping codes indicated convergent concepts and therefore were consolidated. Step 3, themes were developed by identifying recurring features of the data, including consistent patterns and information relating to the research question: ‘how do organisational leaders describe men’s flexible work?’. The patterns of participants avoiding talking about men and discussing traditional gender roles were the basis of the theme development. Step 4, themes were reviewed and further developed into subthemes that described patterns within the main themes. All co-authors considered the codes and resultant themes in relation to the data and the research questions. Step 5, themes were refined and analysed with respect to the theory of gender-blind sexism (Stoll, 2013). The directed literature review informed the use of theory and theme development. Step 6, the results were developed into this report.
For presented extracts, // indicates an interruption, . . . indicates an untimed pause,
3. Preliminary results
It was noted during the interviews that there were difficulties collecting data about men. This observation prompted an inductive approach to the data. Initial inspection of transcripts indicated there were repeated instances of participants deflecting questions about men’s flexible work: ‘this is not necessarily a gender thing’ (10M) and ‘it doesn’t matter if you’re a male or a female’ (2F).
An initial code called ‘gender blindness’ was used to capture instances of difficulty discussing men with participants. Further investigation of this data showed that these responses were not entirely ‘blind’ to gender and the code was developed into the theme, ‘avoiding talking about men’. This was further developed into subthemes that were built by identifying commonalities in the ways participants avoided talking about men. In all cases, this type of talk seemed to be driven by an idea that it was egalitarian to not talk about gender.
As initial coding progressed, we noted that there were also discussions of traditional gender roles: ‘it tends to be, you- more women that are st- that, that reduce hours or work part-time to um:: ah manage family and children’ (6F). Discussions of traditional expectations of work and employment seemed to coexist with attempts at avoiding discussing men. Two core themes were developed from the data, ‘avoiding talking about men’ and ‘men, women, and traditional gender roles’. The two themes are apparently contradictory, covering the avoidance and embracing of gender roles, and yet they both featured in almost all the participants’ accounts. This pattern of avoiding or engaging with gender was compelling and informed refined research questions: How do organisational leaders attend to the matter of gender in discussions of men’s flexible work? and What are the implications for men’s flexible work? Preliminary analysis suggested this would be a fruitful direction, and as this was an unanticipated pattern an inductive analysis was conducted. At this point, it was appropriate to return to the literature and search for other examples and theoretical interpretations of such behaviour.
4. Directed literature review: gender-blind sexism
After preliminary analysis, we returned to the literature to seek explanations for the findings. The persistence of unequal, gendered patterns within an apparently egalitarian social system has been described by Stoll’s (2013) theory of gender-blind sexism. Gender-blind sexism is predicated upon, and challenges the assumption that gender equality has been achieved in a ‘post-gender’ society, that is, a society where gender equality has been achieved and sexism is only enacted by individuals who are not conversant with the values of wider society (Kelan, 2009; Musto et al., 2017; Stoll et al., 2017). Gender-blind sexism was developed by Stoll (2013), drawing on Bonilla-Silva’s (2002, 2010, 2015) theory of ‘colour-blind’ racial ideology regarding continuing racial inequality in supposedly post-racial societies. Gender-blind sexism is characterised by a particular style of communication that includes avoidance of gendered language, ambivalence, taking all sides of an argument, and incoherence. These communication practices are described as ‘rhetorical shields’ protecting speakers from accusations of prejudice (Bonilla-Silva, 2010: 57). Central to the theory of gender-blind sexism are four ‘frames’ or ‘set paths for interpreting information’ (Stoll et al., 2017: 29, emphasis in original, referencing Bonilla-Silva, 2010: 26). The frames are predictable and restrictive ways of discussing gender issues. They are abstract liberalism, naturalisation, cultural sexism, and minimisation of sexism. The ‘frame’ of abstract liberalism describes a single set of rules for every person, regardless of circumstance; where everyone should have access to equal opportunities, but no group should receive special treatment (Bonilla-Silva, 2002; Stoll et al., 2017). Wetherell and Potter (1992) also describe this as a liberal discourse where all people are assumed to start on an equal footing and their own actions and ability, not circumstance or privilege, determine their success. Naturalisation is used to describe gender issues as innate or biologically derived. That is, factors such as hormones and reproductive roles cause men and women to be fundamentally different. For example, men are aggressive due to higher levels of testosterone. Cultural sexism evaluates gender issues as being caused by social processes – deeply entrenched values that cause particular outcomes. This is somewhat similar to naturalisation in that men and women are understood to be different, but it is based on the things they do. One example would be that cultural norms of appearance are related to women engaging in more complex grooming practices. The final frame, minimisation of sexism describes talk that suggests gender discrimination is less prevalent than in the past or suggests gender differences result from factors other than sexism. The ‘frames’ are often used in combination – working together to create convincing and robust arguments that justify situations of inequality.
Stoll et al. (2017, 2021) suggest that gender-blind sexism is an appropriate theory to use when exploring contemporary gender inequality. Blatant or overt sexism is commonly understood to be inappropriate and so to account for continuing gender inequality researchers have proposed that sexism can be subtle, covert, ambivalent or benevolent (Benokraitis and Feagin, 1986; Glick and Fiske, 1996). While such theories have contributed to recent understandings of gender inequality, gender-blind sexism is a more expansive theory that accounts for varied interpretations of sexism and gender inequality.
Previous research has used the theory of gender-blind sexism in investigations of gender and race in school classrooms in the United States of America (Stoll, 2013). In a study of Canadian police officers, gender-blind sexism was attributed to the male participants, who avoided mentioning gender and denied gender inequality, whereas female participants perceived inequality and spoke of gendered experiences (Murray, 2020). Channing’s (2020) narrative analysis of women employed in leadership positions in higher education used the theory and identified gender-blind sexism within the participants’ own employment experiences. Gender-blind sexism has also been extended with Musto et al. (2017) introducing ‘gender-bland sexism’ to explain the ‘lacklustre’ quality of women’s sport reporting on American television.
The theory of gender-blind sexism is supported by the limited research described above, however, the term ‘gender-blind’, or variations thereof, are mentioned more frequently within academic literature in a variety of contexts. The term has been used in the context of blind experiments, that is, when gender is purposely obscured, for example in studies of employee performance evaluation (Jampol and Zayas, 2020). In other cases, gender-blind refers to instances where gender is not attended to, rather than being intentionally obscured (Andersen and Johnson, 2003; González Ramos et al., 2015; Jonsdottir et al., 2020). Research that uses male participants to represent the general population has been described as gender-blind (Mavin et al., 2004). Assumptions of gender-neutrality have been referred to as gender-blind (Aidis and Weeks, 2016; Smithson and Stokoe, 2005), or, in work by Lundine et al. (2019), gender-blindness was described as being used as a metaphor for objectivity. In some instances, other uses of the term gender-blind are consistent with Stoll’s (2013) approach, with the outcomes of gender-blindness linked to the production and reproduction of gender inequality (Lundine et al., 2019; Smithson and Stokoe, 2005). While the term ‘gender-blind’ is used in a variety of ways, the current research concerns itself specifically with Stoll’s (2013) theory of gender-blind sexism and its specific framework.
Stoll et al. (2017) called for more research about gender-blind sexism, particularly using qualitative methods. The research described in the current paper provides such an application of the theory of gender-blind sexism in the novel context of organisational leaders’ descriptions of flexible work and workers, within the context of unequally gendered uptake of flexible work in Australian organisations.
5. In-depth results
Preliminary results were expanded and the initial two themes were analysed with respect to the theory of gender-blind sexism (Stoll, 2013). The inductive approach allowed for the return to the literature and the identification of a theory that explained the surprising data. In general, participants spoke in support of gender equality and egalitarian ideals. However, there were two recurring patterns in participants talk. The first was avoiding gendered talk about men, resulting in difficulty obtaining information that specifically mentioned men, despite interview questions requesting this information. This apparent reluctance to talk about men coexisted with a second pattern of frequent descriptions of traditional gender roles, that is, heterosexual couple families where women are primarily responsible for domestic and care tasks, while men are engaged in paid employment.
This analysis is divided into two main themes, focussing on: first, ‘avoiding talking about men’; and second, ‘men, women, and traditional gender roles’. Each of these themes include subthemes as shown in Table 1. Throughout, we consider how and where strategies of gender-blind sexism (Stoll, 2013; Stoll et al., 2017, 2021), were evident in these accounts. Regardless of whether accounts avoided categorising men or reflected gendered norms, the ‘frames’ and styles of gender-blind sexism were present.
Themes and subthemes developed from participant data.
This table shows the structure of the analysis with two main themes and seven subthemes. All themes and subthemes have been developed from the data and were found to relate to Stoll’s (2013) theory of gender-blind sexism, with the exception of ‘gender awareness’.
5.1. Avoiding talking about men
The first theme, ‘avoiding talking about men’ was present for all the participants except one female participant. Avoidance of speaking about men was achieved with three types of responses, which form the subthemes labelled ‘resistant responses’, ‘generalised responses’, and ‘focusing on women’.
5.1.1 Resistant responses
In some instances, questions about men met with ‘resistant’ responses. These responses evaded the actual question and, in the examples below, provided a response about personal viewpoints instead. This ‘resistant responses’ subtheme is illustrated in the following example from Participant 2F:
Participant 10M was similarly evasive, presenting discussion of gender as problematic:
The above examples show how participants implied their views contrasted with broader attitudes to gender, ‘I might not be common in that thinking’ (2F, elsewhere in dataset). Such statements are acts of positive self-presentation; the participants position themselves as having non-sexist views, by claiming that gender is irrelevant.
The ‘resistant responses’ demonstrate the theory of gender-blind sexism (Stoll, 2013) by avoiding gendered language. The responses also fit within the frame of abstract liberalism because there is an emphasis on perceived or desired sameness irrespective of gender. At a more nuanced level, the focus on the speakers’ personal viewpoint aligns with ‘modern sexism’ (Benokraitis and Feagin, 1986), where, in a society that has supposedly moved beyond sexism, sexism can only remain in the outdated ideas of out of touch individuals (Stoll et al., 2017). Therefore, participants claim that they, themselves do not perceive a gender issue. Bonilla-Silva (2010) proposes that such talk is intended to prevent prejudice (or accusations thereof). However, it restricts discussion of issues that may contribute to the unequal utilisation of flexible work.
5.1.2 Generalised responses
Specific questions about men and flexible work often met with broad, general answers. The following demonstrates a typical pattern that occurred in interviews:
Participant 4M’s response exemplifies the ‘generalised responses’ subtheme, referring to ‘everybody’, ‘people’ and ‘men equally as much as women’, despite being questioned specifically about men. There was a tendency among participants to include people other than men in their answers, constructing genders as equivalent and sharing the same concerns about flexible work: ‘the truth is, it’s the same thing everyone is worried about’ (3M). There is a presumed interchangeability, where people of any gender (although usually specifically men or women) are equally affected by flexible work: ‘I don’t see any particular hurdle, in this organisation, that’s specific to a, a particular sex’ (6F), ‘any of the issues that come up, have, absolutely nothing to do with if you’re male or female’ (2F). The well-researched and commonly acknowledged division of paid work and care based on gender becomes invisible in this type of account.
The above example and similar responses downplayed the relevance of gender, while proposing genders were equivalent. In Participant 4M’s response above, the passing of time minimised the relevance of gender. Participants also downplayed gender by constructing talent as more important – ‘really good people, men or women, will progress with the opportunities there’ (3M, emphasis added) – or by describing certain job choices as less compatible with flexibility ‘people, male or female, need to go into particular types of work with their eyes open about what that might mean . . . for being able to be flexible’ (6F, emphasis added). In all cases, the function of such talk was to present gender as less consequential than other factors.
Overall, the ‘generalised responses’ subtheme is gender-blind in style because it avoids gendered references to men. The subtheme also demonstrates the abstract liberalism and minimisation of sexism frames of gender-blind sexism. Abstract liberalism is present in participants’ constructions of equivalent experiences regardless of gender. Constructing all genders as equivalent separates the situation of work, care and compromise from societal norms and recasts it in terms of individual choice or talent. Furthermore, throughout the ‘generalised responses’ subtheme, gender was minimised by being described as less relevant than other factors and relegating problems as historical rather than contemporary. Conflating the experience of different genders ignores the current evidence for gendered employment, where few men engage in flexible work.
5.1.3 Focusing on women
Questions about men commonly received answers about women. The ‘woman centred’ subtheme is shown in the following example:
Participant 8M also responds in a similar manner to a question about men:
The examples illustrate the way participants would shift to discussing women. The tendency to shift focus towards women in discussions of flexible work produces and reproduces a connection between flexible work and women. Women in the workplace were presented in various contingent ways. Participant 8M’s ‘female employees’ were constructed as somewhat vulnerable, requiring a ‘safe environment’. In Participant 2F’s case, ‘working women’ were ascribed a lower status – described as recent additions to the workplace who occupy lower levels of organisations – and implied to be a subset of women, in contrast to a suggested majority of women for whom employment is not assumed.
The following example shows a varied account of women and men as flexible workers. Women were constructed as predictable, frequent users of flexible work. Men were presented in neutral terms, being unaffected by the formalities of applying for and receiving flexible work.
Participants often presented women as typical users of flexible work, while men’s use of flexible work was described as available; there would be no impediments to men using flexible work should they choose to do so. In the above example, while Participant 9M did present this no ‘impediment’ argument, he also acknowledged ‘cultural phenomena’ may present some barriers, but this description was presented with a great degree of ambivalence: these ‘phenomena’ were presented as both ‘rapidly out of date’ and yet ‘still ummm . . . possibly at play’. Women’s connection to caring and domestic tasks was linked to flexible work arrangements. By the same logic, men’s social role of ‘breadwinner’ might be expected to tie them to full-time, standard working hours; however, instead Participant 9M and other participants claimed that there are no impediments to men’s flexible work. This apparent inconsistency is accommodated by characterising the workplace as a neutral and separate space, unafflicted by the issues of society in general (Acker, 2006).
Participant 9M’s example above is ambivalent, convoluted, full of pauses and drawn out ‘ummms’, which is typical of the style of gender-blind accounting (Bonilla-Silva, 2010). In addition, the ‘women centred’ subtheme fits within the naturalisation and abstract liberalism frames of gender-blind sexism. In an example of naturalisation, women are innately associated with motherhood, care, and flexible work. In an example of abstract liberalism men were assumed to be able to access flexible work because there was presumed to be no impediment to doing so. However, the ‘no impediment’ argument fails to consider the implications of social norms on men’s flexible work (Bear and Glick, 2017; Bornstein, 2013).
5.1.4 Gender awareness
There was one notable exception to participants avoiding talking about men. One of the three women interviewed was candid in her discussions of men. The following excerpt shows part of her answer to the question ‘How do you think men fit into flexible work?’:
In Participant 11F’s quote, and the rest of her data, she was open to discussing men. She did not engage in resistance to discussing men, generalising to all people, or shifting focus to women. Instead, she described male ‘role modelling’ and how it places gendered expectations on men.
Participant 11F drew on her own experiences and workplace difficulties in her interview. Other participants also did this, but in Participant 11F ’s case, the difficulties that she faced as a woman informed an approach that did not include gender-blind sexism. However, gender-blind sexism was present in the accounts of the two other women participants, both of whom spoke about gendered workplace experiences. Participant 2F acknowledged that being a woman often set her apart in work situations. Participant 6F spoke about difficulties using flexible work after parental leave. In the cases of two of the three female participants, the salience of their own gender did not protect against gender-blind sexism.
5.2. Men, women, and traditional gender roles
The second main theme is ‘men, women, and traditional gender roles’, where all participants orientated to stereotypical gendered patterns of behaviour: women were often positioned as carers in the private sphere and men described as paid workers in the public sphere (Dreyfus, 2013; Munsch, 2016). Although participants drew on and reproduced traditional gender norms, they worked to distance themselves from such stereotypes.
Certain regularities in speech recurred in the dataset when participants discussed traditional gender roles. The ambivalence that is a characteristic style of gender-blind sexism (Stoll, 2013) was identified, as was a tendency to minimise gender roles, and point out possible reversals of gender roles; there was also a tendency to maximise gender roles, which is not found in the theory of gender-blind sexism. These strategies form the basis for three subthemes: ‘anonymous majority’, ‘insurmountable problems’, and ‘breadwinner/carer switch’.
5.2.1 Anonymous majority
One strategy for discussing traditional gender roles was to present an account on behalf of an anonymous majority, where participants presented different sides of the situation on behalf of imagined others, whereas the speaker’s own views were equivocal. That is, although participants described traditional gender roles, they tended neither to agree nor disagree with their own statements. For example, the ‘anonymous majority’ subtheme is shown in Participant 1M’s ambivalence about women’s gender roles:
Again, in the next example, Participant 12M expresses ambivalence about gender roles:
Speakers expressed traditional gender roles without taking personal responsibility for what might be interpreted as sexist views: ‘I don’t know if that’s true or not’ (1M) and ‘you can interpret that in a positive light or a negative light’ (12M). The speaker is arguably protected from potential criticism by not endorsing traditional gender roles but is still able to articulate the expectation that women will act as carers and flexible workers.
The ‘anonymous majority’ subtheme utilises an ambivalent style that is typical of gender-blind sexism. The frames of naturalisation and minimisation of sexism work together in the subtheme. By locating the problem of gender inequality in ‘society’, rather than the organisations they lead, participants minimise their own or their organisation’s relationship to gender inequality (Stoll et al., 2017). Gender inequality may exist in society, but organisations are constructed as distinct and egalitarian spaces. Such minimisation allows for statements unequivocally othering women due to reproductive functions in an example of naturalisation.
5.2.2 Insurmountable problems
Another strategy was to present traditional gender roles as ‘insurmountable problems’. A strategy that many participants used was to present current inequality as better than historic inequality, as demonstrated by Participant 7M in the following:
While Participant 7M referenced the past, Participant 3M looked to the future:
The lack of ‘monumental change in behaviour yet’ (7M) described a continuation of traditional gender roles. Participant 3M provided many references to the durability of traditional gender roles – ‘a very long-term plan’, that will not occur in ‘[his] lifetime’, but will be a ‘slow incremental change’ that requires ‘re-engineering society’. Furthermore, in Participant 3M’s account, men doing more domestic and care tasks was described as a ‘good plan’ for gender equality, however, was limited to ‘make[ing]’ men ‘help’, thus constructing men’s contribution to domestic and care tasks as reluctant and secondary.
Much like in the ‘anonymous majority’ subtheme, participants were able to discuss traditional gender roles and their continuing effect on society, but also distance themselves from responsibility. In both the ‘anonymous majority’ and ‘insurmountable problems’ subthemes, traditional gender roles are constructed with an ‘out there-ness’ – the problems exist in ‘society’, not within the speaker’s own views or the organisations they lead. Unlike in the ‘anonymous majority’ subtheme, where disclaimers minimised the speakers’ involvement, in the ‘insurmountable problems’ subtheme traditional gender roles are maximised. Such a construction serves to place change beyond the responsibility of the speaker; the problems are simply too large to be addressed. The concept of maximising gender roles is not present in previous understandings of gender-blind sexism (or colour-blind racism). However, in Wetherell and Potter’s (1992) investigation of race in New Zealand: they propose ‘ascriptions of normativeness, continuity, stability, cohesion and orderliness (p. 159)’ can make aspects of culture ‘weighty’. Similar ascriptions are applied in the current dataset–ascriptions that emphasise traditional gender roles. Thus, we propose an additional frame of gender-blind sexism that we call maximisation.
5.2.3 Breadwinner/carer switch
All participants drew upon a male-breadwinner/female-carer model in discussing families. That is, a couple where a man worked full-time, was the main earner, and was minimally involved in care and domestic tasks, while a female partner was responsible for care and domestic tasks, working part-time, flexibly, or not at all (Pocock et al., 2013). A variation to the male-breadwinner/female-carer model was also described by participants: an occasional switching of roles, ‘you get the odd one where, you know, wife’s working, the male wants to do part-time and help with the kids, but that’s still a rarity in our society’ (3M). In the event of a switch of care and work tasks, the breadwinner/carer model restricts how work and care might be (re)allocated within families – the model requires two adults, with one adult limiting their involvement with work and the other limiting their involvement with family. The ‘breadwinner/carer switch’ subtheme, where switching of traditional gender roles is presented as possible, but uncommon, is shown in the following:
Participant 1M’s example of the ‘breadwinner/carer switch’ subtheme started and finished with confirmations of traditional gender roles that sandwiched an example of switching – highlighted as an infrequent occurrence. Participant 4M also spoke about female breadwinners:
Participant 4M’s example of the ‘breadwinner/carer switch’ subtheme was more optimistic in tone, proposing that change has already occurred with men ‘thinking more about their family responsibilities’; however, his account is more tentative about women, who ‘in some respects may be the main breadwinner’. Throughout the dataset, female breadwinners are constructed as possible, but unlikely.
The influence of the breadwinner/carer model was strong, with all participants discussing this traditional arrangement of gendered work and care. Isolated cases of switching were pointed out as evidence of possible role reversals. This type of talk is an example of the frame of cultural sexism as it suggests that gender differences result from social processes. That is, women choose to use flexible work, while men do not. The subtheme presents the role of ‘breadwinner’ as available to all and women’s uptake of the ‘breadwinner’ role as evidence of a changing culture. Intrinsic to this subtheme was describing switching as a rarely utilised option.
6. Discussion and conclusion
The organisational leaders who participated in this study tended to respond to questions about men in two ways: either avoiding talking about men or discussing traditional gender norms. These contradictory presentations led to an inductive qualitative investigation. Our analysis shows how organisational leaders attended to gender when discussing men’s flexible work and we include suggestions for how such talk relates to perceptions of flexible work for men. The theory of gender-blind sexism is useful for interpreting and unifying these apparently disparate accounts, with the original four frames of gender-blind sexism evident throughout most of the dataset (Stoll, 2013; Stoll et al., 2017, 2021). In addition, we suggest the theory could be expanded to include a fifth frame: maximisation of gender.
The current dataset provides evidence for our suggestion of a fifth frame – maximisation of gender. Participants often constructed gender equality as an insurmountable problem to be solved in the distant future. The addition of a frame of maximisation of gender captures a sense of the ubiquity and resilience of gender roles and the perception of gender as a fundamental point of difference. Equality rhetoric suggests that race should be inconsequential, however gender is considered a relevant point of difference (Morgenroth and Ryan, 2020). Combining the frames of maximisation and minimisation creates a particularly powerful semantic move. When gender inequality is constructed as minimal – a result of people’s choices or personal failings – there is no action for organisations to take. Alternatively, when the problem is maximised, it is not reasonable to expect change. Therefore, we propose that the theory of gender-blind sexism benefits from our suggestion of the addition of a fifth frame called maximisation of gender.
We found that Naturalisation was used somewhat differently to previous research. Naturalisation was evident in depictions of women as ordinary users of flexible work due to caring responsibilities. Bonilla-Silva’s (2010) theory of ‘colour-blind’ racism describes naturalisation of racism as infrequently used because biological explanations of racial inferiority are considered overtly racist and are usually avoided. Stoll (2013), however, found that naturalisation is liberally used to explain gender differences; her investigation of schools in America found that boys and girls under 10 years old were understood to be essentially different. The current analysis found naturalisation was used frequently, but cautiously when applied to adults in workplace situations. Women were frequently linked to care tasks but to exclude women from the workplace on the basis of potential or actual caring responsibilities amounts to sex discrimination (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014). Therefore, the current study found that gender-blind sexism includes more cautious accounts of naturalisation in adult populations, as opposed to a child population (Stoll, 2013).
The themes discussed in the current study were formed from patterns that were remarkably consistent across the participant group. All twelve participants spoke about traditional gender roles and eleven of those twelve participants also avoided talking about men, within the space of the same interview. Gender-blind sexism seems to be a flexible resource and can appear to be good practice, as accounts conform to common-sense understandings of gender (Stoll, 2013). However, it is a surface level improvement that conceals a mechanism for reproducing inequality. Workplace discussions, policies and programmes that conform to gender-blind sexism are unlikely to adequately address issues of gender inequality, primarily due to gender being obscured.
As organisational leaders, the participants were highly influential over organisational culture. Traditional gender roles were treated with resigned acceptance or tacit support by most participants – there was a degree of passivity in relation to gendered use of flexible work. Participants tended to focus on the argument that there was no impediment to men’s use of flexible work. Such arguments focus on procedural matters, rather than outcomes, which has been associated with ineffectiveness of gender equality initiatives (Baker et al., 2021). Gender-neutral policies fit within the ‘no impediment’ argument, despite research findings that gender-neutral policies are interpreted and implemented in gendered ways (Smithson and Stokoe, 2005). In practice, the accounts of organisational leaders, such as those in this study, and their tendency to avoid gender, have implications for men’s access to and use of flexible work. Men’s flexible work is presented as theoretically available, but infrequently used, with women as more appropriate users of flexible work. These presentations may contribute to workplace expectations that male employees will not and should not use flexible work.
6.1. Practical implications
The current study suggests practical implications for leaders of Australian organisations and for people working in diversity and inclusion. The strong patterns present in the current data suggest a common understanding of appropriate ways for organisational leaders to address gender, or more accurately, an understanding that avoiding gender is good practice. It is likely that avoiding discussing gender is done to protect against being perceived as sexist (Bonilla-Silva, 2010). However, avoiding gender and the other aspects of gender-blind sexism discussed herein are likely to inhibit progress towards gender equality. It is more appropriate to engage with gender identity and the social positioning of employees, both within and outside of work, in order to successfully implement gender equality strategies (O’Leary and Sandberg, 2017). Specifically, organisational leaders could acknowledge men’s underuse of flexible work and encourage increased uptake. The language of organisational leaders is likely to have implications for organisational culture and the perceived appropriateness of men’s use of flexible work. As mentioned, the leaders interviewed for the current study were all involved with workplace gender equality initiatives in their organisations. They were seemingly unaware, however, of the potential negative connotations of engaging in gender-blind discourses. This study calls on leaders to reflect on their practices and adopt gender sensitive language as a necessary step in addressing gendered use of flexible work and workplace gender equality in general. Inclusive language is typically promoted as avoiding personal characteristics such as race, age, disability, or gender (Diversity Council of Australia, 2016; Workforce Australia, 2025). This advice is appropriate in many situations, for example, ‘chairperson’ is more inclusive than ‘chairman’. However, we suggest a more nuanced approach and call on leaders to recognise when gender is relevant – as in the case of unequal access to and use of flexible work. In addition, there are numerous resources about men’s flexible work, focusing on destigmatising men’s use of flexible work, encouraging uptake, and setting targets for men’s flexible work use (Diversity Australia, n.d.; Diversity Council of Australia, 2023; Lyons, 2019; Workplace Gender Equality Agency, n.d.-a).
6.2. Future research
The ubiquity of gender-blind sexism in this study suggests it may be widespread; further research could investigate the prevalence of gender-blind sexism in workplaces, the circumstances in which it occurs, and how to overcome the issue. The current study demonstrates distinct patterns within the data but is unable to suggest what factors contribute to gender-blind sexism. One out of the three female participants did not demonstrate gender-blind sexism, suggesting gender may be relevant to the prevalence of gender-blindness. Further quantitative research with a larger sample could investigate prevalence by gender or other factors by utilising the gender-blind sexism inventory (Stoll et al., 2017). We have presented a unique, unexpected, and meaningful pattern of understanding. These findings are important due to their novelty and their potential to improve understanding of workplace gender equality (Buetow, 2009). While, in this study, there was a tendency to avoid talking about men, it is unclear if there would be similar reluctance in discussions targeted towards other gender categories. It may be that a focus on any specific gender category would generate a potential location of prejudice, producing such avoidance (Stapleton, 2015). However, in the present data, there is a specific tendency to be ‘blind’ to the situation of men. Accounts of women tended to consider social norms, such as typical responsibility for home and care tasks; however, men’s social roles as financial providers and dedicated workers were usually ignored (Bear and Glick, 2017; Bornstein, 2013). Also, the pervasiveness of masculine norms in the workplace make men’s gender difficult to perceive (Acker, 1990; Kelan, 2009). Therefore, further research that compares gender-blind sexism in different gender populations would be informative.
The participants in this study held a high level of influence due to being leaders of organisations; they were also highly engaged with the interview process. Together, these elements resulted in rich data from an understudied group and were greatly beneficial to the research project. However, the accounts of organisational leaders form one aspect of a complicated situation. A more comprehensive investigation would benefit from accounts of employees and examination of the organisations’ flexible work policies. The interviews were conducted by a 39-year-old woman who was associated with The Equal Opportunity Commission of South Australia and it is likely that this association, together with the gender and age of the interviewer influenced the responses of participants, as did the choice of an interview as the mode of data collection (Pini, 2005). While it is to be expected that participants would seek to appear egalitarian – it is noteworthy that participants did so by avoiding discussing gender. Most participants avoided answering questions, making demand effects unlikely. The trustworthiness and rigour of the analysis are supported by extensive participant quotes and input from collaborators (Tracy, 2010).
In conclusion, the theory of gender-blind sexism is useful for understanding the reproduction of inequality in seemingly egalitarian organisations (Bonilla-Silva, 2002, 2010, 2015; Stoll, 2013). However, understandings of fundamental gender differences contrast with understandings of racial difference, leading to a gap in the current theory of gender-blind sexism. To fill this gap, an additional frame of gender-blind sexism is proposed – maximisation of gender. The findings of the current study contribute to contemporary understandings of sexism and suggest that the current preference for gender-neutrality can actually reinforce gendered patterns of work and care. This contributes to organisational cultures that lack support for men’s use of flexible work. We suggest that workplace gender equality initiatives could benefit from acknowledging gender and how gender may affect people’s ability to participate in employment.
Key practical and research implications
The ways leaders discuss gender in organisations has implications for the gendered use of flexible work. Gender inequality remains a persistent issue in Australian workplaces. While avoiding discussions that reinforce stereotypes or exclude certain groups is often appropriate, it is also important to acknowledge and address gender-related challenges. We urge leaders to recognise when discussing gender can help to overcome inequality.
Participants in our research tended to oscillate between avoiding talking about men’s gender and discussing gender norms. This was a flexible and sometimes contradictory approach to framing men’s engagement with flexible work, reflecting broader tensions in how gender and employment is understood.
The theory of gender-blind sexism can aid in understanding this pattern of accounting and how it shapes gendered outcomes in the workplace. While blatant sexism is generally understood to be inappropriate, more subtle forms of sexism continue to perpetuate gender inequality.
We propose an addition to the theory of gender-blind sexism – ‘maximisation of gender’ in order to explain how gender norms are presented as robust and pervasive.
Future research could investigate prevalence of gender-blind sexism through quantitative approaches and if it is consistent for other gender identities. Research that investigates the issue from the perspectives of employees and organisational policies would also complement this research.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to the editorial team and anonymous reviewers of the Australian Journal of Management.
Final transcript accepted 7 June 2025 by Catherine Collins (Deputy Editor).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval and informed consent
The Human Research Ethics Psychology Sub-Committee at The University of Adelaide approved our research (approval: H-2018-18/95). Respondents gave written consent to participate and signature before starting interviews.
Data availability statement
The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to participant confidentiality.