No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to critically reflect on current leadership development programmes (LDPs) and their potential in addressing the issue of women’s under-representation in leadership positions. To this end, this paper queries the current processes through which employees are selected to participate in LDPs as well as how these programmes are designed. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, this conceptual paper draws attention to the pitfalls of current organisational practices aimed at women’s leadership development. Findings The introduction of gender quotas and the implementation of women-only LDPs are unlikely to address the persistent gender leadership gap. Instead, these practices are likely to intensify the negative effects of second-generation gender bias and perpetuate the issue of gender inequality and inequity in the workplace. Originality/value This paper critiques contemporary organisational practices aimed at women’s leadership development and suggests alternative practices which are more likely to respond to the issue of women’s under-representation in leadership positions.

Lifelong learning has been the subject of international policy debates and incremental developments over the past century. The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect on the neoliberal discourse of key competences for lifelong learning, which is promoted by the European Union as a self-sufficient policy solution that can cure a wide range of educational, economic, political, and social ills. Drawing on Nussbaum’s human capabilities theory, this paper seeks to query the neoliberal assumptions behind the aims of the European Reference Framework, namely employability, personal fulfilment, active citizenship, and social inclusion, and unveil the limitations of the proposed policy solutions. This paper argues that the current neoliberal discourse of the European Reference Framework decontextualizes the learner, reducing the need to form broader policy solutions that could address the structural roots of unemployment, poverty, and social exclusion. The individualisation of these issues does not allow for their structural roots, which stem from the asymmetrical socio-economic system, to be addressed. This paper argues that the aims of the European Reference Framework could be better served through the development of a wider policy intervention involving a synergy between the education system, labour market, and welfare state.