Dr Anna Górska, an Assistant Professor at the Department of Human Resource Management and Director of Research Center for Women and Diversity in Organizations together with Dr Nina Kotula, a Researcher at the Department of Management discuss hidden gender bias in academia and argue what should be done to to pave a better way forward.
Universities like to think of themselves as places based on ideals of meritocracy. Places where only talent and skills matters. Where gender, background, or family life have nothing to do with success. Work hard, publish well, teach well and you will be rewarded. This is the story many academics in Poland tell about their professional experience. However, our research shows that this story is comforting, popular, and deeply misleading.
Behind the language of “gender neutrality” and “merit,” many women still face everyday disadvantages, subtle forms of disrespect, and slower progress in their careers compared to their male peers. Yet many of their male colleagues honestly believe that no such problem exists. We call this phenomenon “eyes wide shut,” a way of not seeing inequality, even when it is happening all around you. In doing so, universities help sustain a “market of privilege” that rewards men’s careers while quietly limiting women’s, with consequences that extend far beyond academia and into society at large.
In our interviews of academics working in Polish business schools, most men described themselves as neutral, fair and objective. They insisted they choose collaborators based on competence only. Gender, they said, simply “does not play a role.”
“If someone has the skills, then I take that person who knows how to do it, it doesn't matter to me whether it's a woman or a man, because the project needs to be done (…) I don't look at such things [as gender] at all.”
On the face of it, such claims sound progressive. But as our conversations continued, small cracks appeared in the seemingly gender-neutral picture. For example, one man asked about his negative experiences while working in research teams, said:
“A [man] co-researcher passed away, a [woman] co-researcher got pregnant.”
By placing these two very different life events side by side, the interviewee framed both in terms of how they disrupted work. A colleague’s death and a colleague’s pregnancy were treated not as fundamentally different human experiences, but as comparable interruptions to productivity. Within this logic, pregnancy is implicitly constructed as a “problem” for the team, rather than as a normal part of working life that institutions should be prepared to support.
Several men told us that their research teams happened to consist only of men – not because they preferred men, it just happened. In fact, the phrase, “it just happened” appeared in majority of the interviews with male academics, as an argument to explain why their teams were all-male. But when things “just happen,” no one is responsible. No one needs to ask why women are not invited, reflect on informal networks, old friendships, or hidden gatekeeping, which result in overlooking women, even if unintentionally. When exclusion becomes invisible it lasts.
In light of this, it is not surprising that many participants are skeptical about gender equality policies. Our interviewees often described gender equality and diversity plans, next to EU requirements as “forced” or “artificial.” In fact, some men felt that such policies discriminated against them, a few argued that women have now come to dominate universities and so it is men who are becoming the victims:
“Men are discriminated against in Polish science. (…) A man, as the head of the household, needs to take care of everything car, winter tires, shopping, you name it, and bring in the money, obviously… Because I feel that women are very eager to have power over men. I don’t know why, but once they get it, it’s the end; it’s elimination, praying mantis.”
However alarming, such claims exist alongside clear evidence that men still hold most senior positions. For example, men constitute the majority of full professors and over 80 per cent of rectors. This shows that gender-equality measures are being introduced into a system that has long favored men. But when this structural imbalance is ignored or denied, any attempts to correct it can feel like discrimination. From this perspective, equality initiatives are not seen as restoring balance, but an unfair advantage, and with this mindset equality begins to look like favoritism.
While many men describe the academic workplace as fair and merit-based, women describe a very different reality. They repeatedly mention being asked to organize meetings and serve coffee; they also mention that colleagues question their competence. One woman told us that after publishing her first international article, her colleagues immediately asked out loud who had helped her. Another recalled a request to make tea during a professional meeting:
“In our department, which is also a funny thing, it’s always the women who organize the department meetings and we, the women, always do the dishes (…) It was always the case that the male colleagues were sitting, the woman head of the department was sitting, and the woman assistants and associate professors served coffee and brought cakes.”
Such moments of gender-power imbalance are easy to dismiss, since no one opposes nor files a complaint. But repeated over time, they teach women to doubt their authority and lower their expectations, while reinforcing the idea that men “naturally” belong in position of influence. However, some women told us that they had not experienced any serious discrimination. In that respect, they describe themselves as “lucky,” which is also quite telling of their perception of gender imbalance.
“I am very lucky to have had met men who have always approached me, or other women, with great kindness, seriousness, and respect. But have I heard about it? Yes, of course, I have heard of such situations.”
The women often described their male colleagues as supportive and emphasized being treated with seriousness and respect. But describing such treatment as “luck” is revealing. It suggests that being taken seriously and treated professionally is not something they can expect as standard behavior. Rather, it is something they hope for. In short, when unequal treatment becomes normalized, people stop demanding better.
Importantly, these dynamics do not exist in a vacuum. Over the past decades, Polish universities, like many others around the world, have become increasingly neoliberal and market oriented. Rankings, performance indicators, and competition for funding dominate academic life, and their success is measured in numbers. This system rewards people who can adapt to its demands fully: with uninterrupted careers, strong networks, and time for ceaseless productivity.
These conditions are more often available to men. Over time, such advantage reproduces itself and those who fit the system best rise faster, while others fall behind. Yet because many aspects of academic work are measured – publications, citations, student satisfaction scored etc. – the system looks objective. This is what we define as a “market of privilege,” which is gender inequality hidden behind spreadsheets. Furthermore, when we speak of academics’ “eyes wide shut,” we do not mean that people are ignorant or cruel. Most of our participants are very thoughtful, well-intentioned professionals. But they have learned to interpret inequality in ways that makes it disappear. Instead of noticing gender differences, neutrality becomes a moral shield: treating everyone the same way makes the system fair. This belief protects privilege without requiring bad intentions. It allows inequality to survive without villains.
This is not just an internal problem of academia. Universities shape future leaders, professionals, and public debates, they decide which voices are heard and which ideas are taken seriously. When inequality is normalized inside universities, it spreads outward. When talented women are discouraged, overlooked, or just? exhausted, society loses knowledge and creativity. This is why fairness in academia is not a niche concern – it is a public one.
Our research with academics highlights that real change requires more than formal policies and nice-sounding slogans. It requires substance: noticing uncomfortable patterns, asking difficult questions, recognizing that treating everyone “the same way” in an unequal system does not produce equality but its opposite. It also requires finding better pathways for the future. Thus, opening our eyes is not about blaming individuals but about understanding how institutions shape behavior, and doing better. This is a must for universities to be places of knowledge, discussion, integrity, and social progress.
___
The research article is available in Gender, Work & Organization: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400042129_Eyes_Wide_Shut_Gender_Blindness_and_the_Market_of_Privilege_in_Polish_Academia
