Engineering is a profession built on logic, precision, and merit mostly. That said, careers are not shaped by technical skill alone. They are shaped by who gets seen as credible, who gets sponsored, whose mistakes are forgiven, whose confidence is read as leadership, amongst many other factors. In this edition of the BWEng let’s talk, our keynote Dr. Yemi Penn explored how media, social narratives, and workplace culture quietly shape unconscious bias; and in engineering, those narratives still too often tell Black women that they are exceptional only when they are overperforming, resilient only when they are enduring, and visible only when they are proving something.[1]
That matters because the data shows the problem is not just a “pipeline” issue. In the United States, only 18% of female workers were in STEM occupations in 2021, compared with 30% of male workers. Black workers made up 8% of STEM occupations, despite representing 11% of the overall workforce. The gap is not only about entry; it is also about persistence, progression, and whether talented people remain in STEM environments long enough to thrive.[2] It is worth noting that this issue is not isolated to the US alone, it is a consistent one globally and there are similar trends in the UK and other countries across the globe.
For Black women, the challenge is even more layered. Research summarized by The Education Trust describes a “double-bind” in which gender bias and racial exclusion compound one another. In STEM degree attainment argues that women of color in STEM face overlapping barriers that include racism, sexism, exclusionary campus and workplace climates, limited representation, and a lack of culturally relevant support systems.[3]
Bias is not always loud but it is constant
One of the strongest insights from Dr. Yemi Penn’s keynote is that bias is often built through repetition. If the engineers, scientists, founders, and technical leaders we see repeatedly are mostly white, male, or otherwise aligned with a narrow stereotype, then the mind starts to code that image as normal. Everything outside it can begin to feel “foreign,” even to well-meaning people. The point here is not just that stereotypes exist, but that culture teaches them through media, algorithms, storytelling, and silence.
Research from the Society of Women Engineers shows how these biases materialize in real engineering workplaces. Women of color in the study described unfair performance evaluations, lower pay than peers with similar or less experience, lack of honest feedback, difficulty accessing development opportunities, and the exhausting pressure of having to constantly disprove stereotypes. Many also described being “the only one” in the room and needing years before colleagues fully took them seriously.[4]
That pattern is reinforced in broader workplace data. McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace 2024 report found that Black women face the greatest drop in representation at the first promotion to manager. The so-called broken rung that shapes leadership pipelines for years afterward. Women of color hold only 7% of C-suite roles, compared with 22% for white women, and 52% of women of color report having their judgment questioned in their area of expertise. These are not isolated misunderstandings; they are patterns that shape careers.[5]
Scholarly research also shows why these experiences are so damaging. A study in the Journal of Business Ethics found that gender microaggressions in STEM can erode professional identity, trigger rumination and self-doubt, and contribute to burnout and attrition. In other words, what some organizations dismiss as “small things” can accumulate into a major reason women leave. [6]
The cost of bias is not just personal it is structural
When bias shapes engineering cultures, the consequences are not only emotional; they are structural. According to the SWE report, about one in four women leaves the engineering profession within the first five years, and the burdens are often intensified for women of color, who face stricter standards of competence and more isolation. When capable engineers exit early, the field loses not only talent but also perspective, creativity, and leadership. [4]
This is why representation alone is not enough. Organizations can recruit more Black women into engineering, but if they do not change evaluation systems, leadership behaviors, and everyday culture, then women are still being asked to survive institutions that were not built with them in mind. The National Academy of Engineering argues that meaningful inclusion requires more than symbolic commitment. It requires alignment between what organizations say publicly and what people actually experience internally in mentorship, allyship, promotion, and belonging. [7]
Visibility matters but it cannot be the only strategy
Dr Yemi Penn makes an important argument that visibility itself is part of the intervention. Showing up online, claiming space, sharing work, and building a digital footprint can help disrupt the story people unconsciously carry about who belongs in engineering. Her point is practical: if the internet helps teach bias, then the internet can also help unteach it. [1]
That insight aligns with research on representation and climate. The review in Frontiers in Psychology highlights that progress comes from intentional, evidence-based action not passive hope. The paper points to successful institutional examples where focused recruitment, changes to admissions or evaluation processes, and broader institutional transformation increased women’s participation and retention in engineering and computing. The lesson is simple: change happens when institutions design for and accommodate it. Visibility cannot become a substitute for systemic responsibility. Individual visibility can challenge stereotypes, but it cannot, by itself, dismantle biased systems of assessment and advancement. [1]
What can individuals do?
For individuals, the first challenge is internal: reject the story that bias is your deficiency. Dr. Penn emphasizes the importance of “remembering who you are,” refusing to shrink, and recognizing that surviving and succeeding in engineering already reflects strength and capability. That may sound personal, but it is equally important. Bias often works by convincing people they are the problem; resisting that narrative is part of resisting the system. [1]
The next step is relational. Build community on purpose. Seek mentors, yes, but also peers, advocates, and sponsors. Build a network of people who will mention your name in rooms you are not in, advocate for your progression, and connect you to high-visibility opportunities. Research on sponsorship in STEMM distinguishes it from mentorship: mentors advise, but sponsors actively use their influence to create access. That difference matters when careers are being shaped by who gets nominated, recommended, and protected. [8]
Individuals can also challenge bias by documenting impact, naming patterns, and taking up digital and professional space more deliberately. That may mean posting project wins, speaking at events, applying before you feel “perfectly” ready, joining technical communities, or refusing the quiet pressure to stay grateful for mere inclusion. Dr. Yemi Penn’s advice is not to wait for a seat at the table, but to help build new tables, one of the founding values that BWEng is built on.
For allies, the work begins with listening deeply and expanding what counts as expertise. Read more broadly. Interrupt stereotypes when they appear in meetings, evaluations, jokes, and assumptions about “fit.” The evidence on microaggressions shows that ally intervention matters because it can validate women’s experiences and disrupt the cycle of self-doubt these moments create. Good allyship is not performative sympathy; it is active interruption of harmful norms. [9]
What must organizations do?
Organizations must start by accepting that bias is not solved by intention alone. Many companies still rely on one-off awareness sessions or generic statements of commitment, while leaving decision-making systems untouched. Yet evidence-based interventions can work. One study of a gender-bias “habit-breaking” intervention in STEMM departments found an 18-percentage-point increase in the proportion of women hired in intervention departments. The implication is not that one workshop fixes everything, but that structured, evidence-based interventions can shift real outcomes when they are taken seriously. [10]
Second, organizations need to de-bias hiring and promotion processes. That means defining evaluation criteria before reviewing candidates, using consistent rubrics, monitoring discussions for bias, and ensuring that promotions are tied to transparent evidence rather than vague judgments about polish, style, or “readiness.” McKinsey specifically recommends de-biasing hiring and promotions and holding managers accountable for career development and team culture, not just business outputs. [5]
Third, companies must stop treating mentorship as enough. Women need a portfolio of support: mentors for guidance, sponsors for access, and allies for culture change. The National Academy of Engineering warns against a narrow, transactional mindset and argues for a broader developmental ecosystem that creates belonging as well as advancement.
Fourth, leaders must address culture, not just representation. The SWE report points to the need for honest feedback, relevant development opportunities, better support during relocation and life transitions, and leadership that reflects the diversity the organization claims to value. If Black women are consistently underpaid, under-sponsored, over-scrutinized, or left out of key opportunities, then the issue is not confidence; it is culture. [5]
Finally, institutions should invest upstream as well as inside the workplace. The Education Trust argues for stronger pathways through faculty diversity, better campus climates, partnerships with organizations such as BWEng, and more support for institutions serving underrepresented communities. That matters because equity in engineering is not created at the point of recruitment alone; it is built across education, transition, hiring, and advancement. he real question is no longer whether bias exists in engineering. It is whether we are willing to challenge the stories, systems, and habits that keep reproducing it. Representation matters. But transformation matters more. [1][11]
References
- Yemi Penn — Black Women in Engineering
- NCSES / NSF — Representation of Demographic Groups in STEM
- The Education Trust — Why STEM Equity Must Address the Experiences of Women of Color
- Society of Women Engineers — Women of Color in the Engineering Workplace
- McKinsey — Women in the Workplace 2024
- J. Y Kim & A. Meister – Microaggressions, Interrupted: The Experience and Effects of Gender Microaggressions for Women in STEM
- National Academy of Engineering — Mentorship and Allyship for Retention of Women in STEMM
- PMC — Sponsorship Action Plan for Increasing Diversity in STEMM
- Springer — Gender Microaggressions for Women in STEM
- PMC — Gender-Bias Habit-Breaking Intervention
- Frontiers in Psychology — Research Agenda for Increasing the Representation of Women in Engineering and Computing
