Workplace Gender Differences

🗣️“You must be more assertive.” Last year, those five words burned into Amy’s memory. She’d walked out of her 2023 review at XYZ Global determined to “step up.” Speak more in meetings. Push harder on decisions. Stop softening her tone so she wouldn’t intimidate anyone. She did exactly that. Fast forward 12 months. Same conference room. Same 2 VPs across the table. 🔇“You’ve become too intense, need to work on softening your approach.” 😑 Amy stared at them, speechless. Wasn’t that what you asked for last year? Which version of me do you actually want? She thought about the past year: 🤔 The time she challenged a flawed budget forecast in front of the CFO, saving the company $3 million, but earning whispers that she was “abrasive.” 🤔 The time she stepped in to rescue a failing project, praised for her “grit” publicly, yet privately told she “dominated the room.” 🤔 The time she finally got invited to an executive offsite, only to overhear a VP say, “She’s great, but can be… a lot.” This is the tightrope trap senior women walk daily: • Be assertive, but not too assertive. • Be collaborative, but don’t fade into the background. • Be visible, but not “hungry.”    The same behavior praised in men (decisive, strong leader) gets women penalized as abrasive or too much. Until you set the narrative yourself, you’re trapped performing for a moving target. If you’re exhausted from balancing on a wire men don’t even see, here’s how to step off it and still rise. 1. Audit the pattern, not just the feedback • Track every piece of feedback, especially contradiction. Patterns reveal bias. If the goal keeps moving, it's not you! • Phrase to use in review: “Last year I was encouraged to increase my presence; this year I’m told to soften it. Can we clarify what success really looks like?”    2. Control the frame before the room does • Pre‑set the narrative in 1:1s and emails leading up to reviews. I.e., “This year I focused on driving results while bringing the team with me, you’ll see that reflected in project X and Y.” • This primes leadership to view your assertiveness as an intentional strategy, not a personality flaw.    3. Build echo chambers, not just results • Secure 2–3 allies who reinforce your strengths in rooms you’re not in. • Promotions happen in the absence, you need people echoing your narrative, not someone else’s. • Phrase to brief an ally: “If my leadership style comes up in review, can you speak to how I challenge decisions but still align the team?”    Women aren’t just asked to deliver results. They’re asked to perform, decode, and reframe, all while walking a wire men don’t even see. If you’re exhausted from balancing between “too soft” and “too aggressive,” stop walking the wire and start controlling the narrative. Join the waitlist of our next cohort of ⭐ From Hidden Talent to Visible Leaders ⭐ https://lnkd.in/gx7CpGGR 👊 Because leadership shouldn’t feel like an impossible balancing act.

McKinsey & Company and Lean In just released their 11th annual Women in the Workplace report. And this year’s findings should stop leaders in their tracks: corporate America is failing women. The gains we’ve celebrated over the past decade are at risk, and we should be shocked, appalled, and galvanized to act. ➡️ Only 50% of companies are prioritizing women’s career advancement in 2025. ➡️ The number is even lower for women of color. ➡️ Two in ten companies place little or no priority on advancing women at all, rising to three in ten for women of color. I’ve felt this firsthand. Speaking inquiries and advisory are down. In early 2025, clients paused all programs that advance women, often saying: “We don’t want to stop this, but can we pause everything for now?” But I’ll be honest, I didn’t expect the numbers to fall this low. Why does this matter? Because once companies take their foot off the gas, progress stalls. Opportunities vanish long before women ever reach senior leadership. We were still trying to reach parity at the tippy top, still trying to fix broken systems, and now half of companies are stepping away entirely. So what happens next? You’ll see more women opt out of traditional pathways. Not because they can’t handle the pressure, but because they are naming the truth: the system wasn’t built for them, and many organizations aren’t even trying to fix it anymore. Maybe they will wait for a slightly better job market but you are going to see more women exit. And now the ambition data: for the first time in 11 years of this study, women are less likely than men to want a promotion. ✅ At entry level, 69% of women say they want a promotion compared to 80% of men.  ✅ At senior levels, 84% of women vs. 92% of men. But here’s the most important finding from the report: when women receive the same sponsorship and manager support as men, this ambition gap disappears. The issue was never women's ambition. It’s access, advocacy, and structural support. It shows what companies do, the actions they take, matter. This echoes what I’ve been studying in my work on the Corporate Heroine and the Corporate Fairytale. We raised a generation of women leaders on the belief that if they checked every box, over-delivered, and powered through obstacles, the system would rise to meet them. But the system never promised that. It demanded flawless performance without providing the scaffolding to grow. It offered a fairytale without the architecture to make that fairytale real. This year’s data confirms what women have been saying quietly: they aren’t pulling away from leadership. They are questioning whether the cost of leading inside outdated systems is worth it. If organizations want progress, 2026 must be a year of renewed commitment. Sponsorship. Advocacy. Flexibility. These are not perks. They are the foundation that makes advancement possible. The roadmap is clear. The question now is whether leaders will follow it.

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

I wrote The Glass Cliff because although we know that more and more women are breaking through the invisible barrier of the Glass Ceiling, I still found myself struggling to find the number of success stories about their lives in leadership that I would have expected, or hoped for. Which led me to ask - what is life really like on the other side of the Glass Ceiling, and are women really taking on their dream jobs, or being set up for a nightmare? What is The Glass Cliff? The Glass Cliff phenomenon, first described by researchers Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam, recognises that women are most likely to be appointed to leadership positions in companies, and organisations which are going through a prolonged period of poor performance. This means that women often find themselves having the opportunity to take on leadership roles that have a limited likelihood of success, or acting as stopgaps whilst businesses look for the right man for the job. Of course, not every story of female leadership is a story of an inevitable slide off the edge of The Glass Cliff, because for the phenomenon to play out, a certain set of factors need to be at play - which gives us a good idea of what to look out for when considering new roles, or opportunities. A moment of crisis - when businesses are in crisis, they often turn to women to lead because of their perceived soft skills, and the comfort they can bring to a struggling team. These crises can be a hit to profitability or stock performance, a reputational scandal where the tarnish is likely to be passed to a new leader, or even a crisis global or national level - like a recession or navigating through Covid 19. A history of all male leadership - When a business has only been led by men up to that point, bringing in a woman to lead can be seen as a break from the norm, a chance to bring in a fresh new perspective, as well as signaling their progressive and open minded nature. However, in these appointments, women are usually given a much shorter timeframe in which to prove themselves, and are more likely to be exited with a short tenure, and then replaced by a white male - which is known as the savior effect - signaling a return to a ‘safe pair of hands’. A lack of internal support - Even the best leader isn’t going to turn around a business in a crisis single handedly. She needs the support of her team, particularly her senior team. When this support is lacking, as it often is for women in leadership thanks to out-group bias, an already challenging role can feel like an impossible slide towards the edge of the Glass Cliff. The first thing we can all do to overcome the Glass Cliff is to be aware of the phenomenon. We must recognise its prevalence in women’s working lives, and understand it as a shared experience faced by female leaders in many, and then commit to investing in underrepresented leaders, at whatever stage of our careers we ourselves are. #LinkedInBookClub

For years, ‘feminine’ leadership traits, like empathy, vulnerability and intuition have been devalued and criticised in the workplace… With many women being encouraged to replicate masculine models of power, and be more authoritative and directive. These expectations have not just forced women to squeeze themselves into a box that doesn’t fit them and into a system that wasn’t designed for them - but it’s limited their career success and is a huge reason why women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions to this day. One of the six paradoxes of power that many women experience in the workplace - the Leadership Paradox - tells women to ‘be a leader, but not like that’, and insists that women lead like men, and not as their true selves if they want to receive recognition and climb the organisational ranks. Consider your own working experiences as a woman… (If you’re a male ally reading this, consider these questions from the perspective of your female co-workers). • Have you ever been labeled as ‘aggressive’ or ‘bossy’ when you’ve spoken up or asserted yourself? • Or perhaps, on the other hand, you’ve been called ‘soft’ or ‘weak’ when you’ve demonstrated empathy or compassion? • Have you had many female leaders to look up to or, like many women in the Women Rising community, have you had very few or no female leaders or role models above you in your organisation? While I offer a myriad of strategies for overcoming and dismantling the leadership paradox in my book, Women Rising: The forces that hold us back and the tools to help us rise, a strategy I want to offer you today is to develop your own leadership blueprint. • What are your unique leadership strengths? • Where could you find opportunities to utilise these strengths more in your workplace? • What are your leadership values? • What values aligned opportunities could you access or create? These ponderings will help you to get clear on the kind of leader you want to be, the innate strengths and qualities you already possess, and how you can be proactive in showing up in your workplace in a new way and inadvertently, play a role in dismantling a paradox that harms the majority of working women. I’d love to hear your reflections in the comments. #womenrisingbook #leadershipparadox #leadership

Isn’t it funny how women are sometimes told to "act more like men" to be effective leaders? The irony is, the same behaviors that are often excused or applauded in men can be dismissed as "emotional" or "aggressive" in women. The truth is, leadership isn’t about mimicking anyone, it’s about embracing authenticity, empathy, and resilience. Instead of fitting into outdated molds, let’s encourage leaders to be themselves, bring diverse strengths to the table, and rewrite the narrative of what leadership looks like, what say you?

Have you ever watched a woman get promoted into a leadership role that was already on fire and wondered whether the appointment was an opportunity or a setup? The glass cliff is a phenomenon first identified by researchers Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam at the University of Exeter in 2005. Their research found that women are disproportionately appointed to senior leadership positions during periods of organizational crisis or financial decline, meaning women are most likely to be handed power at the precise moment that power is most difficult to wield successfully. Where the glass ceiling describes the invisible barrier preventing women from rising to the top, the glass cliff describes what awaits some of the women who break through it: a leadership position perched at the edge of a precipice, under-resourced, politically exposed, and structurally set up for outcomes that no amount of individual excellence can fully prevent. The evidence is systemic and measurable. Women now hold 63% of sustainability executive positions globally, at the exact moment the US market is pulling back from ESG and DEI commitments, making sustainability the most politically exposed and resource-constrained function in corporate America. Research published in the Academy of Management Journal found that companies facing poor performance are significantly more likely to appoint women to leadership, and that those women face a higher risk of being blamed for outcomes predetermined before their arrival. When those roles are eliminated or defunded, women absorb the professional consequences while the structures that created the conditions for failure remain intact and ready to repeat the cycle. This is not accidental. Recognizing the pattern is the first act of resistance. Changing the conditions before you accept the appointment is the second, and it is the one that actually protects you. If your entire professional identity is tied to a title that a CEO can eliminate with a press release, you are more vulnerable than any level of performance excellence can protect you from. Your expertise, your network, and your point of view belong to you. No restructuring can take those away. For the full analysis, read my cover feature in Supply Chain Digital March 2026. Link in comments. Have you experienced the glass cliff? Please like and re-post this to help someone who may need it 🙏🏽 #IWD #IWD2026 #leadership

Women and Leadership — What is the Glass Cliff, and Does It Actually Exist? When organisations are in crisis, women are more likely to be handed the reins. But the leadership roles they’re offered are often riskier, more precarious, and come with fewer chances of success. This phenomenon is known as “The Glass Cliff.” A major meta-analysis published in Psychological Bulletin confirms the Glass Cliff is real, although the effect is small and context-dependent: Women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions during downturns, crises, or poor performance periods: 💠 in male-dominated industries 💠 in countries with higher gender inequality 💠 when a man held the role previously 💠 when the organisation’s performance was poor 🔎 Why does this happen? Some suggest that during crises, stereotypically “feminine” leadership traits like empathy and communication are seen as more beneficial (“think crisis—think female”). Others argue that companies may want to signal change by appointing someone different. But these symbolic moves can be double-edged. The roles are often inherently precarious, and women may lack the support they need to succeed. Another interpretation is more critical: that these appointments can reflect prejudice—setting women up for failure as these roles are inherently more precarious. 📌 The Key Takeaway: Being appointed to lead during a crisis isn’t always a breakthrough—it can also be a setup. For true progress, leadership appointments must come with support, stability, and conditions for success. Reference: Morgenroth, T., Kirby, T. A., Ryan, M. K., & Sudkämper, A. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of the Glass Cliff Phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 146(9), 797–827. https://lnkd.in/gXxiZZex #glasscliff #womeninleadership #diversityinleadership #organisationalpsychology #leadershipresearch #genderequity #evidencebasedpractice

As recently as last year, pharmacy chains were a bright spot for female leaders — one of the few sectors in corporate America where women could make it to the very top. Rosalind Brewer was CEO of Walgreens and, at the time of her appointment, the only Black woman leading a Fortune 500 company. Karen Lynch was running CVS Health, the biggest public company ever helmed by a woman. Heyward Donigan at Rite Aid Corp. rounded out the trio. Today, all three are gone. Donigan and Brewer were both shown the door in 2023, and Lynch was ousted last week, when CVS announced that the board had unanimously decided to dismiss her after a string of disappointing earnings, repeatedly downgraded forecasts and pressure from investors. In the aftermath of their collective departures, what’s now become apparent is that their rise had little to do with the pharmacy industry being particularly inclusive or intentional about fostering and promoting female talent. Instead, each company had an impossible job that needed to get done. And impossible jobs often go to women. It’s a classic glass cliff scenario. A variation of the glass ceiling, this theory holds that women are mostly likely to get a shot at a big job when a company is in crisis or a turnaround. In these cases, boards are more willing to try a new kind of leader because the one they have (typically a white man) isn’t working out, or because likely male candidates see the job as a minefield they don’t want to touch. Women take the job because they know it may very well be their only chance to run a company. When they struggle or fail, boards then have an excuse to return to the leadership status quo (again: white men). My take for Bloomberg Opinion.