Gender Bias In Decision Making

When women lead, they are seen as “bossy.” When men lead, they are “decisive.” Success nugget...I have seen this happen too many times in meetings, projects, and boardrooms. A woman takes charge and voices her opinion, and suddenly the room feels tense. People say she is “too direct,” “too emotional,” or “hard to work with.” Then a man comes in, says the exact same thing, and somehow it sounds like leadership. He is confident. Visionary. Commanding. The double standard is subtle, but it runs deep. Women are expected to be assertive but not too assertive. Strong but not intimidating. Ambitious but still likable. It becomes a constant balancing act, one that drains energy and confidence. Many women start questioning themselves: “Did I come off too strong?” “Should I have softened my tone?” “Maybe I should have waited for someone else to say it.” And that is where the problem lies. When leadership is filtered through gendered expectations, women are forced to play smaller, not because they lack ability, but because they are tired of being misjudged for showing it. We cannot keep telling women to “lean in” if the moment they do, they are labeled as “difficult.” Real change begins when workplaces learn to recognize bias disguised as feedback. Leadership is about making an impact, driving vision, and standing firm in your values; qualities that have no gender. It is time we stop confusing confidence with aggression just because it comes from a woman. P.S. Do you believe workplaces are truly ready to unlearn this, or are we still rewarding the same old leadership stereotypes? #WomenInLeadership #GenderBias #LeadershipMindset #WorkplaceCulture #WomenEmpowerment

"She's been in Forbes, does she think she's too important to turn up now?"     This is an actual comment said to an employee of mine at an international women's day event, by a woman, to a woman, about a woman.   I couldn't attend an IWD networking event due to previous commitments and so decided to extend the invite to a team member, to network and absorb the incredible opportunity of celebrating international women's day, with a room full of my peers.   The irony of the comment vs the event and location was not lost on me and my team member was frankly, horrified.   But should we be surprised?   Research shows that women, must be liked to succeed at work.   The research also shows a negative correlation between success and likeability that correlates in the opposite direction to men.   As a woman, there is a statistical truth that the more successful you are, the more you will be disliked.   The person who made the comment..   "She's been in Forbes, does she think she's too important to turn up now?"   Literally cited a recent success.. and then closed off with a negative comment, connecting the first, to the second, probably without even realising what they'd done. (Because most misogyny is subconscious)   This, is the likeability paradox.   This negativity towards confidence in women leads many of us to use ‘softeners’ in person, in conversations and emails, adapting our language to appear apologetic or unsure when making a point.   If you’ve ever added the phrase “I just wanted to check” to the end of a statement, finished off a directive with “If that makes sense?” or written “I might be wrong” in an email when you know you’re not, you’ll recognise this pattern.   But what do we do?   Ultimately, until we dismantle the gender stereotypes instilled in all of us from childhood and begin to change the narrative when it comes to how different genders present, both men and women will always encounter bias and make subconscious assumptions.   The best way to combat the likeability paradox in the meantime is to recognise when it’s happening.. Both to you, and when you’re the culprit – and challenge it when you can, in yourself and in others.

The way women get attacked online for having confidence is…telling. If a woman says she knows she’s attractive, there will be men in the comments ready to “bring her down a peg.” If she talks about being great at her job, suddenly she’s “full of herself.” If she shares her accomplishments without minimizing them, she’s “bragging” or “attention-seeking.” The pattern is obvious: the minute a woman stops self-deprecating and shows unapologetic confidence, there’s a line of people waiting to tear her down. Here’s what I have to say to that: Confidence is not arrogance. Self-belief is not an invitation for critique. And women do not need to downplay themselves to be palatable. If a man can say “I’m great at what I do” and be celebrated, a woman should be able to do the same without being told to “humble herself.” So to the women reading this, don’t dim your light to make someone else comfortable. Your confidence is not the problem, their discomfort with it is.

The double bind. Women are encouraged to be confident, accomplished, and self-assured, but they are also expected to be warm, modest, and non-threatening. When a woman acts “confident enough” to be effective, she can be judged as violating feminine norms. That core mismatch is the basis of role congruity theory: leadership is often coded as agentic traits like assertiveness and decisiveness, while women are still stereotyped as communal and accommodating. A related lens is the warmth-competence tradeoff. Social perception research shows people tend to judge others on two major dimensions: warmth and competence. For women, the cultural demand for warmth is often stronger; for leaders, the demand for competence and assertiveness is stronger. That is why the same behavior that reads as “leadership” in a man can read as “too much” in a woman: confidence boosts perceived competence, but it can reduce perceived warmth or likability. The backlash research is especially clear. In Laurie Rudman’s classic work, self-promotion raised women’s competence ratings but also created social and hireability costs. In later studies, agentic women were discriminated against in hiring because they were seen as insufficiently nice, even when they looked qualified. Another major paper found that agentic women are often judged as similarly competent to identically behaving men, but less likable and less hirable. In other words: the penalty is often not “she can’t do it,” but “she’s hard to like.” There is also research showing this dynamic gets inside women’s own behavior. A large experimental literature found that women describe their performance less favorably than equally performing men, and that this gap matters for hiring and pay. Importantly, that gap persisted even when participants were told exactly how well they had performed, which means it cannot be explained only by women “not knowing” they did well. Other research points to fear of backlash as one reason women may self-monitor, soften, or understate themselves. And none of this means women are worse leaders. A meta-analysis of 95 studies found that, overall, men and women did not differ in perceived leadership effectiveness, and in other-ratings women were rated significantly more effective than men. The problem is not women’s confidence. The problem is the biased social reading of that confidence. So the theory underneath your sentence is this: society approves women’s self-love only when it remains non-threatening. The moment confidence starts to signal authority, status, ambition, or refusal to shrink, it can trigger a norm violation. That is why women are told to “believe in yourself,” then punished when that belief becomes visible. In other words, we tell women to be confident, but only in ways that keep other people comfortable. The moment a woman’s confidence looks like power, the culture often stops calling it confidence and starts calling it arrogance.

Why confident women are still called arrogant. Men can be confident. It looks normal. Women can be confident... and suddenly it looks… wrong. - Assertive becomes intense. - Strong becomes ruthless. - Clear becomes arrogant. - Confident becomes “too much.” It’s a pattern many people recognise at work. You’ve seen it. A man speaks directly in a meeting. > He’s “decisive” A woman does the same. > She’s “difficult” A man pushes back on a weak plan > He’s “strategic” A woman does it. > She’s “negative.” Same behavior, different story. Research from MIT Sloan School of Management finds that women are rated as highly, or even higher, on performance, but consistently rated lower on leadership potential than men. In other words, competency doesn’t translate to promise for women the way it does for men. Social psychologists call this role 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲. when behaviour fits one identity (leader) but clashes with another (woman), the evaluator punishes the person for being inconsistent. Here’s how scholar Alice Eagly once put it: “𝑾𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒂 𝒘𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒂 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓, 𝒔𝒉𝒆’𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒂 𝒘𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒏.” That simple line explains so much of what we observe at work. Men are allowed to take up space. Women are expected to justify it, and soften it so it doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable. This pressure doesn’t only come from men... Women learn it too. And sometimes pass it on. Not out of cruelty...Out of survival. Because in most systems, a woman who doesn’t make herself smaller doesn’t get punished loudly, she just gets quietly passed over. So women learn to: – pre-apologize – add warmth – lower their voice – dilute their certainty Not because they lack confidence. Because they’re managing risk. Every time a woman shrinks to be acceptable, the system gets easier to run, and leadership gets weaker. Confidence is not arrogance. > It’s clarity. Directness is not cruelty. > It’s direction. Presence is not ego. > It’s responsibility. Women are not “𝒕𝒐𝒐 𝒎𝒖𝒄𝒉” They’re finally taking up the space they were always told not to. Discomfort is often where the truth lives. Which part did you feel? 🌍 Save or share if this resonates or could be useful to someone in your network. ➕ Follow Sandrine Perrier for more on leadership, feminine presence & energy at work.

Confidence is praised until it becomes inconvenient. I can’t tell you how many women I’ve spoken to who were told to be more confident. They took the feedback seriously. They started speaking up. Taking space and owning their accomplishments out loud. But the moment their confidence made someone uncomfortable, the tone of the feedback changed. Now they were “too direct.” “Too full of themselves.” “Too much.” I have heard this myself a few times throughout my career when I made that shift. What’s confusing and exhausting is how invisible the line is. You’re expected to be confident… but not arrogant. Assertive… but not abrasive. Vocal… but not dominating. Ambitious… but only if it doesn’t disrupt anything. Where is the middle ground and where is the line between “not enough” and “too much”? I'm really keen to hear your thoughts on this one; I am sure it hits home with many of you. I've heard stories from women at all levels, from individual contributors to senior leaders, who felt like their confidence had to be carefully managed, softened, or scaled depending on the room they were in. It begs the question: → Is confidence only safe once you’ve earned a certain title? → Do we actually want confident voices or just convenient ones? → And how many women are holding back right now, not because they lack confidence, but because they’re tired of being penalized for it? This isn’t about blaming individuals. It’s about recognizing that the environment often sends mixed messages and those messages shape how women show up at work. Confidence shouldn’t be a trap. It should be something that’s welcomed, encouraged, and respected even when it challenges the status quo. #confidence #leadership #womenatwork #businesswomen

Leadership tests everyone. But it tests women differently. I had an experience that forced me to take a closer look at why. A male colleague had been creating a hostile environment. Speaking negatively about me to employees. Undermining my credibility. The kind of behavior every leader eventually has to address. So I did what leaders are supposed to do. I stayed calm and professional. I confronted the issue head on. The conversation with my colleague went well. He apologized. We moved forward. What happened next is what stayed with me. Instead of recognizing that I handled a difficult situation with maturity, the CEO, who was also present, redirected the conversation to feedback about me. He shared that this colleague viewed me as a know it all. Not because of my performance, but because in meetings I speak confidently and bring my expertise. So I asked a simple question. Is this a real behavior issue or is this a perception issue? That is when the CEO admitted something I was both appreciative of and deeply unsettled by. He said the perception existed partly because I am a woman in a room full of men. Hearing that out loud was a moment of clarity. Not because it was surprising, but because it was normalized. Acknowledged as if it were simply the cost of being the only woman at the table. Something I just had to work around. Meanwhile, those same rooms include men who raise voices, interrupt, roll their eyes, or derail conversations. Yet none of them walk out labeled as know it alls. This is the double standard women in leadership carry. If you speak up, you are too much. If you don’t, you are not enough. If you take initiative, you are difficult. If you stay quiet, you are disengaged. Leadership requires using your judgment. Bringing your expertise. Addressing issues directly. Having a voice. If a woman doing those things earns a negative label, that is NOT about her. That is about the culture around her. I will always reflect. I will always grow. But I will not shrink to make others more comfortable. Confident women are not the problem. Systems that punish confident women are. So I keep coming back to one question. If a woman knows her work, uses her expertise, and leads with professionalism, is that being a know it all or is that simply leadership? Because the answer says more about the organization than it does about her. What are you thoughts?

"I'm just the pretty face." I said it out loud on a call. About myself. The CEO of the company. I built the tech we were there to talk about. I've shipped systems for Fortune 500 clients. Five words, and I handed all of it away. And yes, I hear the irony. A woman writing a whole post about underselling herself, while listing what she's built. But that contradiction is exactly the problem: the safest way for a woman to claim her own work is still to wrap it inside a flaw she's confessing. I caught it the second it landed, but it was too late. It came out on pure reflex. Decades of practice at downplaying my own resume. A whole career of reading a room as already deciding I wasn't the one in charge, because I'm a woman. Turns out I'm not special. I'm the data. Christine Exley and Judd Kessler at Harvard ran the study. Same test, equal scores. Men rated their own performance a 61 out of 100. Women gave themselves a 46. The part that got me is that the gap held even after everyone was told their exact score. The women had the proof right in front of them and still marked themselves down. And it wasn't because they doubted their abilities; the researchers ruled that out. The habit was just running underneath all of it. And the why is well documented. Psychologists have a name for it: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁. Laurie Rudman's research lays out the double bind women get caught in. We're read as less ambitious and less authoritative by default, so we get overlooked for leadership unless we step up and act the part. The moment we do, we get punished for it. When a woman is assertive, she comes across as abrasive, and when she's confident, she reads as cold. The exact same behavior that gets a man called a natural leader gets a woman called "a lot." And this isn't some dusty finding from one study. It keeps showing up, and the cost piles up over a whole career. A 2024 study out of Columbia, Harvard, and Luiss found that men feel real anxiety around women who negotiate or assert themselves, and respond by wanting to work with them less. It shows up in the numbers too: women in management report more job disaffection and leave at higher rates than the men beside them. So we learn to get ahead of the penalty. We shrink the resume ourselves, before anyone else can. Everybody doubts themselves, and I'm not claiming women own impostor syndrome. What's different for women is what happens next: men tend to get praised for their ambition, while women get marked down for the very same thing. So we learn to mark ourselves down first. I don't have a clean fix for this. What I do have is a little more awareness than I had before, because now that I can hear the reflex coming, I can stop the sentence before it leaves my mouth. That's the work, at least for me. Ladies, I'd love to know... have you ever done this to yourself? #WomenInLeadership #WomenInTech #Leadership #ConfidenceGap #WomenInBusiness

“Too confident.” “Too ambitious.” “Too much.” Funny how the things that make men leaders… are the same things that make women a “problem.” And we call that a confidence gap? It’s not. It’s an opportunity gap. - For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 87 women are. - Women of color? Just 73. Women are less likely to be promoted based on potential. More likely to receive personality-based feedback instead of performance-based. And constantly navigating a double bind: - Be confident, but not too confident. - Be strong, but stay “likable.” So what happens? We over-prepare before speaking up. We shrink our accomplishments to stay palatable. We live in fear of being “too much” for rooms we’ve already earned a seat in. And when we finally do advocate for ourselves? We get labeled. “Aggressive.” “Difficult.” “Not a team player.” This isn’t a confidence issue. It’s a systems issue. -> Confidence in women is often perceived as a threat. -> Assertiveness is misread as arrogance. -> Leadership potential goes unseen because it doesn’t come in the expected “package.” Confidence grows where it’s safe to show up fully. Opportunity fuels self-belief - not the other way around. So if we want more women leaders? ✅ Stop promoting based on tenure alone - look at potential. ✅ Sponsor women the way we mentor men. ✅ Redefine leadership to include collaboration, empathy, and intuition. Women don’t need fixing. The system does. PS: What’s one leadership challenge you’ve faced as a woman - or seen another woman go through?

The "Competence-Likability" Trap Why are women still penalized for being strong? A study by Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick in the Journal of Social Issues found something so absurdly outdated it feels surreal: women in leadership who demonstrate competence and confidence are penalized socially, labeled as “unlikable,” while men doing the exact same thing are praised. In 2024, it’s beyond frustrating that women still face backlash for showing competence, strength, and assertiveness—not just at work, but in every aspect of life. When women lead, speak up, or stand strong, they’re often labeled as “unlikable” or “too much,” while men showing the exact same traits are praised for their confidence. This isn’t just a workplace problem; it’s a life problem. Women who take charge often face a lose-lose situation: show strength and risk being called “difficult” or “cold,” or hold back and be overlooked. For women in positions of leadership, this takes a toll. Women report constantly having to tone down who they are just to be accepted. Strength and assertiveness shouldn’t be values “reserved” for men. Yet, from boardrooms to friendships to families, women are often expected to fit neatly into boxes of gentleness and “likeability.” It’s exhausting. This bias doesn’t just affect careers; it shapes the way women live. It influences how we show up in our relationships, how we’re judged as mothers, daughters, friends, and partners. When we can’t embrace our full potential without criticism, everyone loses. Why are we still accepting this? Why should women have to walk on eggshells just to avoid labels that shouldn’t exist in the first place? Our society can’t afford to keep sidelining women’s strength and competence. What are you doing to support and celebrate the strong women in your life? #Leadership #GenderBias #EnoughIsEnough