Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder engagement sessions

Led by our Icelandic team, two of the GEiO teams (Team Iceland and Team UK) carried out stakeholder engagement sessions with their data partner organisations.

Stakeholder engagement sessions are structured group meetings where research team members meet with employees from the partner company. The sessions serve two main purposes:

• To share the results of the research with participating companies.
• To provide a forum for participants to discuss these findings with the research team and among themselves.

Why hold stakeholder engagement sessions?

These sessions provide direct benefits to the participating companies, giving them insights from the research while also encouraging reflective discussion on workplace practices.

How are these sessions run?

Number of sessions and participants:

It is recommended to hold at least three sessions per company if possible. Each session should include approximately 10 employees, selected across similar organisational levels to encourage open discussion and minimise power imbalances. Session composition may vary depending on company needs—for example, an all-women group or a mixed-gender group of administrative staff.

Session structure:

Before the session, participants receive a summary of key research findings. The researcher facilitates the discussion, encouraging participants to share their experiences and perspectives while maintaining confidentiality.

Each session lasts around 60 minutes and is divided into three segments:

• The researcher presents the findings with illustrative examples.
• Participants discuss the findings among themselves using prompts from the researcher.
• The researcher invites participants to share discussion outcomes, addressing questions or resistance as needed.
• Sessions are audio-recorded with participants’ permission.

Stakeholder engagement in the GEiO project

A key goal of the GEiO project is to provide feedback to stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement sessions are designed to raise awareness of the research findings and allow the research team to observe how findings are interpreted within companies. This helps identify potential obstacles to workplace equity and provides a safe space to address resistance to gender equality initiatives.

Outcomes and benefits

Discussions from SES are analysed to map gendered power dynamics, barriers, and opportunities for equity. Similar engagement approaches have been shown to raise awareness among staff and leadership, offering a secure environment for reflective dialogue and supporting organisational strategies to improve gender equality.

Example: stakeholder engagement in the UK

Number and composition of sessions:

Session 1: 5 men, selected horizontally across the company.

Session 2: 5 women, selected horizontally across the company.

Session 3: Mixed-gender group (4 men, 2 women), including section heads and leaders.

Method:

Sessions followed the stakeholder engagement protocol described above. Due to smaller group sizes in Sessions 1 and 2, we conducted a single whole-group discussion rather than splitting participants into subgroups, which worked well.

Participant engagement:

All participants were engaged and contributed thoughtful reflections. Many noted they were surprised by some findings, despite expecting a general alignment with their experiences.

Key findings:

• Participants were surprised by the diversity of opinions on videoconferencing; many had not anticipated negative perceptions of online meetings.
• Online meetings appeared to “equalise” hierarchical dynamics; some participants felt more comfortable speaking in online meetings than in-person meetings.
• Female participants noted online spaces could feel safer than male-dominated in-person environments.
• Male participants observed that online meetings neutralised physical presence advantages, such as height or stature.
• Gendered self-consciousness varied: men reported greater physical self-awareness in online meetings, while women felt less self-conscious.
• Discussions highlighted differences in contributions and interruptions; women’s contributions were often brief, sometimes interrupted by supportive comments that inadvertently disrupted flow.
• Age differences influenced experiences, with younger participants lacking in-person meeting experience and older participants noting missed relationship-building opportunities.
• Participants noted online meetings were sometimes too convenient, making it easier to over-schedule meetings.

Potential behavioural changes:

• Participants planned to consider diverse perspectives when organising meetings.
• Some women indicated they would encourage more in-person meetings for those less comfortable online.
• Rotating chairs in meetings was suggested to reduce domination by a few individuals.
• Participants expressed intent to be more conscious of their own contributions and responses, particularly regarding gender dynamics.

Next steps for the GEiO Project:

• Conduct follow-up with partners to evaluate the long-term impact of participation.
• Undertake a cross-cultural analysis with the Icelandic team to compare SES experiences and findings, leading to a joint publication.