Gender training that is not properly embedded in strategic processes of gender mainstreaming
Since I undertook my first training in equal opportunities for women and men nearly 25 years ago after finishing a research project for the senate of Berlin on male reactions to affirmative action plans, I have gained a lot of experience about what works and what does not work in gender training.
In this article, I want to show that “It doesn't work” when gender training is not properly embedded in strategic processes of gender mainstreaming “It doesn’t work!”. I pointed this out in a lecture at the European Conference on ‘Advancing Gender Training to Support Effective Gender Mainstreaming’, 13—14 November 2012, in Vilnius, Lithuania, which I visited on behalf of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Berlin.
Drawing the consequences out of this, I am going to show how gender training works, before setting out the quality standards that we developed at the German Professional Association for Gender Training and Consultancy Gender Diversity e.V. I was the founding chair of.
A. The realization of gender mainstreaming in Europe is inadequate.
Despite 15 years passing since the Treaty of Amsterdam no country in Europe has adequately implemented gender mainstreaming. This is not only my opinion: Virginia Langbakk, director of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) also assessed the situation in a similar manner during the EIGE conference in Brussels in November 2011. Although there are clear differences in levels of national implementation, compared to the far-reaching goals set out in gender mainstreaming, we are still at the very beginning.
What are the reasons for this?
1. Reduced and less attractive goals.
Daniel Bankier, director of the unit for equal opportunities at the Directorate-General
Justice, told us that the main goal of the European Commission in the field of gender
mainstreaming for the period between 2011 and 2015 was to increase the employment
rate for women from 62 to 75 per cent. This is an important and ambitious aim,
but gender mainstreaming would be much more successful if it pursued broad and
integrative aims, and were not restricted to aims such as the female employment rate.
Christian Raschke “Vielfalt Gestalten“ 2013
2. The EU does not act as a role model when running its organizations or providing funding.
It is not necessary to explain this point, but I will provide one example. A colleague of mine from Spain just told me that in the terms of reference (TOR) of many European tenders, gender training is obligatory but there is no mention of what gender training should be like – besides from the fact that training should take place in four star hotels.
3. The EIGE is not able to help as much as we hoped it would.
Despite the fact that the European Parliament decided to set up the EIGE in 2006, we had to wait a really long time – until 2011 – before the organisation actually began its work, as Barbara Limanowska from the EIGE reminded us last year in Brussels. Data collection and developing best practises is important, but the EIGE is unable to propose political initiatives. In my opinion it would be far more important to advise
European bodies on how to implement gender mainstreaming. Consultancy and support for governments and institutions is a compulsory task that has not yet been taken up by the EIGE. In fact, the EIGE only seems to have a minor impact on European developments. This leads some of us in Germany to speak of the organisation in terms of a “toothless tiger”.
4. Focusing on top-down strategies neglects bottom-up and organizational development.
At the beginning of gender training and at certain other times, top-down strategies are very helpful – everyone recognises their importance. However, it is necessary to ensure the focus eventually changes from top-down to bottom-up strategies – as doing so provides us with the power we need for real change, especially as we know that middle management is the level most reluctant to implement organizational change. Besides, as we undertake more research on organizational development we learn howdifficult it is to instruct change. Sometimes we speak about the impossibility of steering organizations: this cannot be done merely through instructions sent out from the top level.
5. Competition between gender mainstreaming and diversity management.
The discussion about the core of diversity sometimes seems to be a struggle about the central dimension of oppression. I accept that there are different actors, wordings, theoretical approaches and political lobbying groups. But these are differences we can profit from. We must stop competing with diversity management – this is a competition that cannot be won.
6. Male experts are not actively involved.
We are not yet successfully including male experts and addressing male leaders; this is especially a problem at the European level. If we do not succeed in doing so, gender mainstreaming will remain a women’s issue at least as long as men are not properly included or are even excluded. But this is another topic I am very interested in.
What are the consequences of these points for gender training?
B. Gender training should not be used as a stopgap or a substitute for consistent strategic change in pursuit of gender equality.
At present, gender training often serves as a symbolic means of legitimizing a lack of organizational change. Participants from the lower levels of organizations are sent on short training courses; the outcomes are disappointing and this can be blamed on the failure to achieve sustainable results.
Last year at the EIGE’s first conference in Brussels, Barbara Limanowska, senior expert for gender mainstreaming and head of operations at the EIGE, claimed that gender training was the central strategy for gender mainstreaming. But such training must be very specific and oriented towards the work of the respective participants. There are so many manuals and checklists available, but a lot of them simply disappear into people’s desk drawers. A very broad research project called Quing was also undertaken throughout Europe until 2011, and it also focused on gender training.
But what are the results of so much research?
C. Effective gender training is based on a broad and integrated strategy for personal and organizational development towards gender equality.
This is nothing new: successful training sessions should be integrated into organizational development strategies. This is clearly stated in every training manual, no matter which field it covers. How this can be done is shown in the following with an example of best practice, in this case a personal development programme offered by the Heinrich Böll Stiftung in Berlin. The programme is one component of the
Stiftung’s integrated strategy to achieve gender democracy – as it calls it. For more than 10 years, gender diversity competences have been obligatory for all employees at the Heinrich Böll Stiftung and every new employee undertakes a special, compulsory gender training. Outside of Germany, most of the Stiftung’s offices hold regular gender workshops and the tool ‘gender-oriented project planning’ (GOPP) defines how these projects are to be implemented. The manner in which these efforts are integrated into the Stiftung’s everyday work is clear from the way this qualification programme starts. Every participant is required to develop objectives that are to be achieved during the programme; these objectives have to be agreed upon with the participants’ line managers as part of a performance review.
D. Quality standards for effective gender training are being developed by the German Professional Association for Gender Training and Consultancy.
The first two of our standards refer to Part B and C of this article:
1. Qualified gender training should last at least 6 hours. The recommended duration is one and a half to two days.
2. To make gender training sustainable:
a) the contracting organization needs a gender strategy with gender-just goals.
b) top management should be involved in defining the goals of the training at the very least.
c) all members of the organization should be informed about the results of the training.
E. These quality standards include four criteria on methods used in gender training:
3. A professional training with lots of practical exercises should be led by two
trainers when there are more than 15 participants. When the training is being
used to start a strategic process of gender mainstreaming, it is good to work
with a male and female trainer team to demonstrate gender equality right from
the beginning.
4. Personal reflection to achieve self-awareness and theoretical input are
necessary aspects of gender training. The third step is transferring these basics
to the participants’ jobs and their day-to-day behaviour. Personal reflection
enables learning and opens people’s minds; although learning is also a question
of personal motivation.
5. In gender training, the gender relations in the participants’ organizations should
be examined and strategies worked out to improve relations. The diversity of
working and home realities of men and women also need to be explored.
6. Working in separate unisex groups with men and women is a useful way of
discussing the gender stereotypes that we want to ‘de-construct’.
F. Later, the quality standards include a certification process for gender experts and aset of standards that help gender training yield sustainable results.
7. Gender trainers need to be skilled trainers or consultants with a professional education; proof of this should be provided by references from similar jobs. Alternatively, gender trainers can take a special course or gain certification from Gender Diversity e.V. – a professional association for gender training and
consultancy.
By respecting these standards, we can ensure that gender training plays an important role in a comprehensive process of gender mainstreaming
----
Christian Raschke - organizational consultant, supervisor, http://www.christianraschke.de
2013