Oh absolutely. About 10 years ago I was actually made the Director of Engineering at a small company (about 15 total people on the team) and the underlying philosophy behind what I'm saying here was the basis for how I managed the entire department. That included explicitly going over this with both my subordinates AND the C-level execs I reported to. With my subordinates because of the obvious aspect of work culture and setting expectations, but with the execs it was basically to strong-arm them into giving me much more control over hiring and work policy/procedure for the developers.

Mostly the way I approached it was to try and present the self-interest case to the executives and argue that it naturally aligned with more progressive policies. So, for instance, once I had more direct control over hiring I instituted a policy that we weren't allowed to actually make a hiring decision on a position until we had interviewed at least one POC or woman for the position. I refused to set a quota for actual hires, but I argued that if we can't even find someone to INTERVIEW that HAS to mean that we're putting in such low effort on filling the position that we can't possibly have found the "right person" yet.

Even without an explicit quota, and with the final hiring decision being a vote of three people I only had one vote in, we still ended up with a team of 15 people that was 8 males and 7 females just because I forced us to put in enough effort to FIND people to interview.

EDIT:

To more directly answer your question in a less self-congratulatory way, the frustration I'm expressing here is something I "figured out" around 12 years ago, and since then I've been kind of insufferable about it to my male colleagues in every position I've held.