Female Leadership

I once got feedback that I was “intimidating.” I took it to heart. I spent the next few years trying to be as approachable, warm, and agreeable as I could be. I assumed this was a character flaw that I needed to fix. But years later, I realized something: this feedback wasn’t about me. It was about the system - one that judges women more harshly and polices their personalities more than their performance. And the numbers back this up. 👇🏽 🎯 Women are 7x more likely to receive negative personality-based feedback than men. 🎯 56% of women have been called "unlikeable" in reviews (vs. 16% of men). 🎯 Harvard Business Review found that 76% of “aggressive” labels in one company’s reviews were given to women (vs. 24% to men). This Is the Leadership Double Bind: Speak up? You’re “too aggressive.” Stay quiet? You “lack confidence.” Show ambition? You’re “unlikeable.” Ask for a promotion? You’re “too pushy.” And here’s the kicker - it’s worst for high-performing women. This is why women... ↳  Hesitate to showcase ambition. ↳  Are reluctant to ask for opportunities. ↳  Are leaving workplaces faster than others. So, what can we do? Here are 3 ways we can start changing this narrative today: ✅ Check your language. Is the feedback about personality or performance? If you wouldn’t give the same critique to a man, please reconsider. ✅ Challenge vague feedback. “You need to be more confident” isn’t actionable. Women deserve the same clear, growth-oriented feedback as men. ✅ Support women’s ambition. If certain leadership traits (ex. being assertive) are seen as strengths in men, they should be seen as strengths in women too. Have you ever received unfair feedback? What’s one piece of feedback you’ve had to unlearn? 👇🏽 ♻️ Please share to help end unfair feedback. 🔔 Follow Bhavna Toor (She/Her) for more insights on conscious leadership. Source: Textio 'Language Bias in Feedback' Study, 2023 & 2024 #EndUnFairFeedback #IWD2025

📄 Women’s Leadership — What Works, What Doesn’t, and What’s Missing I invite you to read this new review co-authored by Ana María Muñoz Boudet, Francesca Bramucci , and Mariana Viollaz that examines policies to promote women’s leadership. Here are the takeaways for practitioners, governments, and development partners: 🔍 Main Findings 1. Women remain underrepresented in leadership across politics, business, and community institutions due to barriers in capabilities, motivation, and opportunity. 2. Quotas do not always yield substantive influence (i.e. real decision-making power). 3. Role models can inspire women and shift norms. Training, mentorship, and capacity-building often boost advancement potential, yet less clearly move women into top leadership positions. Success of organizational reforms and anti-discrimination policies depends on leadership buy-in and norm change. 4. Poorly designed interventions can provoke backlash, tokenism, or reinforce stereotypes. And without complementary supports—networks, legitimacy, access to resources—women leaders may struggle to influence outcomes meaningfully. 💡 Recommendations (and Reflections) • Adopt multidimensional strategies: To promote women’s leadership at scale, we must tackle multiple barriers—capabilities, motivation, and opportunity—simultaneously. • Design quotas in alignment with meritocracy and apply them with accountability and support systems. • Support role models and narrative change to boost women’s aspirations and shift norms. • Reorient training toward leadership outcomes: Align capacity-building with the “last mile” challenges women face stepping into top roles—navigating power dynamics, influencing strategy, leading teams. • Strengthen institutional architecture: Incentivize equal opportunities for women in leadership pipelines, evaluation and promotion systems. • Monitor “substantive representation” beyond counting women in leadership roles to assessing whether those roles yield real influence and improved outcomes. This paper resonates with my experience: • It confirms what I have observed: engaging women as leaders is not just about opening doors, but transforming systems so those roles are meaningful. • It underscores the importance of pairing structural reforms (laws, quotas) with norm change, institutional incentives, mentoring, and support. • It reminds us to evaluate substance and impact, not only representation. How do outcomes change when women participate in decision making? Let’s design leadership ecosystems that empower women not only to lead, but to shape agendas and drive better outcomes - and let’s measure the impact. 🔗 Read the full paper: Promoting Women’s Leadership: What Works, What Doesn’t, and What’s Missing https://lnkd.in/dn-J4P27 #GenderEquality #WomenLeadership #WorldBank

The glass cliff phenomenon is a harmful, and real form of gender bias holding women back as leaders. It is backed by academic research: 1. Researchers at the University of Exeter found that women are more likely to be appointed as CEOs in companies that have performed poorly in the past, compared to men. 2. Columbia Business School found that women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions in companies that are in crisis, compared to men. The study also found that women are less likely to be appointed to leadership positions in companies that are performing well. 3. McKinsey & Company consistently finds that women are underrepresented in leadership positions across industries, with only 38% of manager-level positions being held by women. When women are seen as the right choice to clean up a mess, but not to lead when times are good, it is bad for all humans. #womenshistorymonth #allyship #leadership

🤏🏼 It takes so little for men to be trusted as leaders 🤏🏼 And it takes so little for women to be questioned as one. When I took my first Senior Director role in Germany, deep in the male-dominated automotive world, my future boss and I had a quiet heart-to-heart. “Jingjin, in this world, women in power are seen in only two ways: The Victim or The Villain. There is no third option, at least not yet. Which one you choose will define your entire leadership path.” I said I’d be a Victor. Naively believing performance alone would protect me. It didn’t. Because Leadership isn’t just about competence. It’s about perception. And perception for women is often rigged. 🔻 Be firm → You're a bitch 🔻 Be soft → You're weak 🔻 Be nurturing → You're not tough enough 🔻 Be assertive → You’re intimidating 🔻 Be collaborative → You lack authority 🔻 Show ambition → You’re self-serving 🔻 Set boundaries → You’re difficult 🔻 Show emotion → You’re unstable Meanwhile, men doing the exact same things are seen as confident, visionary, and decisive. The game isn't fair, but it can be hacked. 💥 Here’s how I’ve learned to play it smarter, not smaller: 1️⃣ Stop aiming to be liked. Aim to be trusted. Do this instead of people-pleasing: set 3 non-negotiables (response time, meeting prep, decision rights) and tell your team. Close every loop: “As promised, delivered X by Fri; next: Y by Wed.” Say no with options: “To deliver A by 15 Oct, we drop B or move C to Nov, what’s your pick?” 2️⃣ Use duality to your advantage. Be warm in tone, cold in logic.“Thanks for the push, bottom line: delay = €120k burn; I recommend Option B.”  Kind in delivery, fierce in boundaries, say kindly: “Happy to help; I can take two items, not five. Which two matter most?” 3️⃣ Make allies before you need them Map five: your boss, their boss, Finance, Legal, one influential peer. Give each a monthly micro-win (early heads-up, a clean slide, a risk you catch). Pre-wire asks: “In tomorrow’s review, if this comes up, can you anchor it back to my team’s Q2 analysis?” Send a 3-line update monthly: “Where we are / risk / what I need.” Deposits before withdrawals. 4️⃣ Own the label, then flip it. Pre-empt: “I’ll be direct so we can decide in 20 minutes, stop me anytime.” State the elephant in the room: “Yes, I’m intense, that’s how we hit targets. Here’s the plan, owners, and dates.” If poked: “I hear ‘difficult’; what I’m being is clear. With a budget we deliver B by 30 Nov; without it, we pause. Which path?” 🚀 If you want to install these moves step-by-step with scripts, templates, and real case breakdowns, our signature online program “From Hidden Talent to Visible Leader” is now available on demand (opened by popular demand for those who missed the live cohort). Check out here: https://lnkd.in/g--zEGZS 👉 Because being good at the job and being seen as good at the job are two different jobs...

What is the current state of research on women in leadership? Really exciting to see this new systematic review in The Leadership Quarterly. The authors integrate decades of research to answer two core questions; 🔎 What factors influence whether women emerge as leaders (female leadership emergence)? 🔎 What factors influence their effectiveness once they do (leadership effectiveness? Highlights 💠 Female Leadership Emergence: Despite progress, women still emerge less often as leaders, primarily due to stereotypes and a perceived lack of fit with traditional leadership roles. Traits such as agency and resilience positively influence emergence, while low self-confidence and stereotype-driven bias hinder it. 💠Effectiveness: Female leaders are often rated as more effective than males by others, though they tend to underrate themselves. Objective outcomes (like firm performance) show mixed results depending on the metric (e.g., positive for sales, neutral for ROI). 💠Traits & Surface-Level Characteristics: Traits like emotional intelligence, resilience, and openness benefit women more. Gendered expectations and intersectionality (race, age, etc.) further complicate perceptions. 💠Attributions & Perceptions: Stereotypes remain a major barrier, but competent female leaders can benefit from the "double standards of competence" effect. Men often hold stronger biases, though exposure to female leaders can mitigate these views. 💠Behaviors: Women tend to adopt communal and participative leadership styles. Combining agency and communion helps avoid backlash. Transformational leadership styles are only marginally more common among women and sometimes do not benefit women as much as men. 💠Contextual Factors: Work-family balance challenges and male-dominated industries negatively impact leadership trajectories. However, the presence of female mentors and role models, supportive organizational culture, and quota systems can be positive. 💠Crises & the Glass Cliff: Women are more likely to be appointed to risky leadership roles during crises—a phenomenon known as the “glass cliff.” While this may open opportunities, it often lacks the support needed for success. 📌 Key insight: Female leaders thrive when they’re supported by inclusive contexts, visible role models, and leadership development that equips them to navigate both structural and interpersonal challenges. A must-read for anyone designing leadership programs, studying gender equity, or supporting the next generation of leaders. 📖 Citation: Buss, M., Andler, S., & Tiberius, V. (2024). Female leadership: An integrative review and research framework. The Leadership Quarterly. https://lnkd.in/gWAUXmuH #leadership #womenleaders #genderdiversity #leadershipresearch #evidencebasedpractice #leadershipdevelopment #organisationalpsychology

Last week, I facilitated a discussion at Columbia University for their Women’s Leadership Network and one of the readings I assigned the participants was about the glass cliff and now one week later we have a real-world example of the glass cliff playing out. The glass cliff is the phenomenon that occurs when women (often from racially and ethnically marginalized backgrounds) are able to ascend to leadership positions when the corporation is in turmoil. Many women are tapped to stepped in when a company is mired in controversy. What is happening right now at #Boeing is the perfect example of this. Why are they now elevating longtime female exec (Stephanie Pope) as their new CEO at a time when they are making headlines for all their issues and controversy? 🤔🧐 When the women that are elevated into these leadership positions inevitably fail, people use this as proof of their incapability and incompetence + further evidence of why #DEI “doesn’t work.” We need to recognize this corporate trap and call it out whenever we see it happening because it harms us all. Don’t hire us when your company is in trouble. Allow us to lead and trust us to lead when the company is prosperous and watch how we magnify your organization to new heights. #WomensHistoryMonth

Just 29% of women in the C-suite say they aspire to the CEO role. For men, it’s 49%. That gap isn’t about ambition. It’s about environment. Too many women look at the CEO role and see: - Unsustainable pressure - A narrow definition of leadership - A personal cost they’re not willing to pay And they’re not wrong to question it. When leadership is modelled as constant availability, aggression over judgement, and burnout as a badge of honour, opting out can feel like self-preservation, not a lack of drive. But here’s the problem: When fewer women aspire to the top job, the system reinforces itself. Less representation. Fewer role models. The same leadership norms, repeated. So how do we change the conversation? → First, we need to broaden what leadership looks like. There is more than one way to be an effective CEO… and we should celebrate different styles, not punish them. → Second, we need visible pathways. Women need to see leaders who are building power and sustainable lives, not choosing one at the expense of the other. → Third, this isn’t a women-only issue. Male allies matter. Boards matter. Investors matter. If we want different outcomes, we need different signals about what success looks like. Aspiration doesn’t disappear in a vacuum. It’s shaped by what people believe is possible and worth it. If we want more women to aim for the CEO role, we need to make it a role they actually want to step into. 📷 - the always brilliant The Female Quotient

Just out: excellent academic review on female #leadership Synthesizes 247 empirical studies on female leadership and shows that women remain underrepresented in leadership roles largely due to enduring stereotypes that associate leadership with male, agentic qualities. Women often receive higher effectiveness ratings from others, though they underrate themselves, and objective performance advantages are small and inconsistent. Traits such as confidence, resilience, and achievement motivation support women’s emergence, while biases around agency and communion continue to shape perceptions. Behavioral differences between male and female leaders are smaller than stereotypes suggest, but women face penalties for behaving “too agentically” and doubts about fit when behaving “too communally,” making blended styles—clear, competent, and relational—most effective. Unsurprisingly, contextual factors matter: work–family pressures, male-dominated cultures, and limited networks hinder advancement, whereas exposure to other female leaders, supportive cultures, and role models help. Overall, the evidence points to slow progress, persistent bias, and the importance of context rather than inherent gender differences Open access: https://lnkd.in/d95qxtzh #women #talent #gender #bias #diversity

Have you ever noticed how women often find themselves stepping up into senior leadership roles during crises? I recently read an insightful article about the "glass cliff" phenomenon, which highlights how women, including Kamala Harris, are often promoted to leadership positions during turbulent times. This trend is not just something we have recently seen in politics; it's even more noticeable in the business world. The likelihood of a woman being placed in a leadership position is 50 % higher in "crisis companies" than in companies not facing major transformations. Women not only face greater challenges in reaching leadership roles in general, but they also have to prove themselves from the start, as they are more frequently appointed during crisis situations compared to men, who are often hired during more stable times. Having personally led several companies through transformative periods, I understand the unique pressures and heightened scrutiny women (and men) encounter in these roles. It's crucial to recognize this bias and work towards structural changes that ensure these leaders are not set up for failure but are instead provided with the necessary support and resources to succeed. Of course, there are also a lot of men impressively skilled at managing crises situations, like Dan Schulman, former CEO of PayPal, who effectively guided the company through numerous challenges, including frequent hacker attacks, demonstrating strong crisis management skills. Similarly, Steven van Rijswijk, CEO of ING, displayed exemplary leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic by quickly adapting their working culture to the new circumstances, enhancing efficiency and resilience. However, the significant difference lies in the circumstances under which women assume leadership roles, which we need to address. Women may temporarily reach the top of a company but often struggle to establish themselves because the risk of failure during a corporate crisis is too high. So, what can we do about it? Breaking the glass ceiling is only the first step — we must also dismantle the glass cliffs that await on the other side. This means creating an environment where leadership opportunities for women are abundant and sustainable, regardless of the organization's state. A big shoutout to all the women (and men) who have taken on challenging roles and shown they can succeed! #glasscliff #leadership #crises

A highly qualified woman sat across from me yesterday.   Her resume showed 15 years of C-suite experience. Multiple awards. Industry recognition.   Yet she spoke about her success like it was pure luck.   SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of female executives experience this same phenomenon.   I see it daily through my work with thousands of women leaders. They achieve remarkable success but internally believe they fooled everyone.   Some call it imposter syndrome. I call it a STRUCTURAL PROBLEM.   Let me explain...   When less than 5% of major companies have gender-balanced leadership, women question whether they belong.   My first board appointment taught me this hard truth.   I walked into that boardroom convinced I would say something ridiculous. Everyone seemed so confident.   But confidence plays tricks on us.   Perfect knowledge never exists. Leadership requires:   • Recognising what you know • Admitting what you miss • Finding the right answers • Moving forward anyway   Three strategies that transformed my journey:   1. Build your evidence file Document every win, every positive feedback, every successful project. Review it before big meetings. Your brain lies. Evidence speaks truth.   2. Find your circle Connect with other women leaders who understand your experience. The moment you share your doubts, someone else will say "me too."   3. Practice strategic vulnerability Acknowledging areas for growth enhances credibility. Power exists in saying "I'll find out" instead of pretending omniscience.   REALITY CHECK: This impacts business results.   Qualified women: - Decline opportunities - Downplay achievements - Hesitate to negotiate - Withdraw from consideration   Organisations lose valuable talent and perspective.   The solution requires both individual action and systemic change.   We need visible pathways to leadership for women. We need to challenge biased feedback. We need women in leadership positions in meaningful numbers.   Leadership demands courage, not perfect confidence.   The world needs leaders who push past doubt - not because they never experience it, but because they refuse to let it win. https://lnkd.in/gY9G-ibh