Thanks for your question.
In terms of hiring, I think there is also evidence—and I can't put my finger on it here—that the language in which job descriptions are couched is really significant in making them appealing across gender. Something that describes a role as “very competitive” or “demolishing the competition” or “making our company exceed its goals”, those very competitive words versus words like “leadership” and “collaboration”. Even though they could mean very similar things, those words can bias who is interested and willing to apply.
But certainly one of the things we would recommend is that hiring managers need to be supported in learning to understand those biases and those subtle things that can affect who applies and who is successful. There is lots of evidence as well that when hiring panels talk about candidates they'll qualify their approval of female candidates. They'll say they want to be sure she did all that research on her own. They'll do that when they wouldn't necessarily do that for male candidates.
We talk about generational change versus behavioural change. The generational change is very slow. I think you can also speed up some of that change by making people aware of what they're already doing. Even the awareness that you have an implicit bias is huge in helping people to understand how they're making decisions about hiring and promotion and tenure or admission into a graduate program.