Why women are often seen as assets not leaders

As International Women’s Day nears, we’ll see the usual corporate gestures—empowerment panels, social media campaigns, and carefully curated success stories. But let’s be honest: these feel-good initiatives rarely change what actually holds women back at work on the daily basis. Instead, I suggest focusing on something concrete, something I’ve seen have the biggest impact in my work with teams: the unspoken dynamics that shape psychological safety. 🚨Because psychological safety is not the same for everyone. Psychological safety is often defined as a shared belief that one can take risks without fear of negative consequences. But let’s unpack that—who actually feels safe enough to take those risks? 🔹 Speaking up costs more for women Confidence isn’t the issue—consequences are. Women learn early that being too direct can backfire. Assertiveness can be read as aggression, while careful phrasing can make them seem uncertain. Over time, this calculation becomes second nature: Is this worth the risk? 🔹 Mistakes are stickier When men fail, it’s seen as part of leadership growth. When women fail, it often reinforces lingering doubts about their competence. This means that women aren’t more risk-averse by nature—they’re just more aware of the cost. 🔹 Inclusion isn’t just about presence Being at the table doesn’t mean having an equal voice. Women often find themselves in a credibility loop—having to repeatedly prove their expertise before their ideas carry weight. Meanwhile, those who fit the traditional leadership mold are often trusted by default. 🔹 Emotional labor is the silent career detour Women in teams do an extraordinary amount of behind-the-scenes work—mediating conflicts, softening feedback, ensuring inclusion. The problem? This work isn’t visible in performance reviews or leadership selection criteria. It’s expected, but not rewarded. What companies can do beyond IWD symbolism: ✅ Stop measuring "confidence"—start measuring credibility gaps If some team members always need to “prove it” while others are trusted instantly, you have a credibility gap, not a confidence issue. Fix how ideas get heard, not how women present them. ✅ Make failure a learning moment for everyone Audit how mistakes are handled in your team. Are men encouraged to take bold moves while women are advised to be more careful? Change the narrative around risk. ✅ Track & reward emotional labor If women are consistently mentoring, resolving conflicts, or ensuring inclusion, this isn’t just “being helpful”—it’s leadership. Make it visible, valued, and part of promotion criteria. 💥 This IWD, let’s skip the celebration and start the correction. If your company is serious about making psychological safety equal for everyone, let’s do the real work. 📅 I’m now booking IWD sessions focused on improving team dynamics and creating workplaces where women don’t just survive, but thrive. Book your spot and let’s turn good intentions into lasting impact.

🧾 The cost of being seen isn’t the same for everyone. For women, it’s a "Surchage" no one talks about. 👩 Take Ling, a regional sales director. When she speaks up in strategy meetings, she’s told to “be mindful of her tone.” When she stays quiet, she’s labeled “not strategic enough.” It’s not a leadership gap. It’s a cost-benefit calculation, rigged against her. 👩 Meet Rina, a product lead. She’s built three go-to-market launches. Each one a success. But when promotion time comes, her boss says: “You’re doing great. Let’s not disrupt the team dynamic.” Her competence became the excuse to keep her contained. 👩 And then there’s Julia, a COO candidate. She’s been asked to mentor the next generation of women leaders. But no one’s sponsoring her to be the next CEO. 👉 Because championing others is celebrated. Championing yourself gets complicated. But the problem is, the system charges women extra for the power move: • Speak up? Pay the “too aggressive” tax. • Stay humble? Pay the “forgettable” fee. • Stay silent? Pay with your career.    ⚙️ So how do you stop overpaying for power? You fix it by changing the cost structure. Here are 4 strategic power moves to change the terms: 1️⃣ 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲. Most women try to optimize for comfort: "How can I be visible without making anyone uncomfortable?" Wrong question. Ask: "What does this room need to believe about me to attach power to my name?" Then behave in a way that enforces that belief, consistently! 2️⃣ 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁. Workhorses get thanked. Strategists get promoted. Shift the conversation from "how hard you worked" to "what changed because of you." Make people dependent on your thinking, not your labor. 3️⃣ 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁, 𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗺. When women lead, people often don’t know how to process it. So they fill in the blanks, with assumptions. Don’t let the room guess. Tell them why you’re doing what you’re doing. Say 👉 "I’m recommending this because it moves us closer to the long-term goal." 👉 "I’m raising this because keeping quiet will cost us more later." 4️⃣ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗼𝗺’𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Decisions about you happen in rooms you’re not in. Those rooms won’t remember your to-do list, they’ll remember the shortcut version of you. Make sure the phrase people repeat about you is a power narrative, not a service narrative. Keen to own your narrative? 📅 Join our online workshop on July 24th 7:30 to 9pm SGT 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸 👉 https://lnkd.in/gVT2Y59Q 👈 For women who are done paying extra just to be in the room. 👊 Because if you keep paying the power tax quietly, you’ll be subsidizing other people’s promotions forever.

The “Loyalty is for Labradors” post clearly struck a nerve. I’ve heard from women who said it hit close to home, because they’ve been that “loyal, dependable, supportive” team member, the one holding everything together while others get the recognition, the visibility, and the promotion. Loyalty, care, and dependability aren’t the problem. The problem is that workplaces don’t value them as leaders. We still reward confidence, charisma, and visibility, but overlook the relational work that makes those outcomes possible. The mentoring, the mediating, the emotional labour, the invisible glue that keeps teams functioning, work that women do far too much of. So how do we fix it? For organisations: Redefine what leadership looks like. Reward empathy, collaboration, and influence alongside commercial impact. Track and recognise non-promotable work, the culture and inclusion tasks that keep your workplace running. For leaders: Change how you describe and advocate for women. Use the language of business: “She drives results. She influences outcomes. She strengthens performance.” And expect the same so-called “soft” skills from men. Listening, fairness, and collaboration are leadership essentials, not gendered extras. For women: Be loyal to your purpose, not to systems that undervalue you. Make your results visible. Speak about your impact in business terms. Play the long game. Learn to navigate the system strategically while we work to change it. Loyalty is a strength. Leadership is knowing where and how to direct it. 🧨 Why Loyalty Is for Labradors (Not Women at Work) It’s the latest Truth Bomb Times, and this week’s Go Deeper section provides the fixes. https://lnkd.in/g7P3d6dQ #WomenInLeadership #GenderEquality #Leadership #WorkplaceCulture #Feminism #TruthBombTimes #DEI

Why is it that when a man leads, he’s seen as a visionary, but when a woman does the same, she’s labeled controlling? When a man is strategic, he’s admired; when a woman is strategic, she’s branded manipulative. A man is authoritative, while a woman is deemed annoying. A man is confident, yet a woman is called arrogant. It’s time to call out this double standard for what it is: blatant sexism. The traits we value in leaders are unfairly twisted when it comes to women. This isn’t just a minor issue—it’s a systemic problem that affects women’s opportunities, perceptions, and career growth. Leadership qualities shouldn’t be gendered. Let’s redefine what it means to be a leader, ensuring everyone is judged by their actions and not by harmful stereotypes. It’s time to level the playing field. Change isn’t just necessary—it’s overdue.

As a C-suite leader, I’ve managed 500+ people, closed billion-dollar deals, and had incredible peers champion me. But as a *female* C-suite leader, I've also been talked over, called 'bossy' and underestimated. For years, we have been told: 💬 “Women are too emotional.” 💼 “Moms aren’t committed to their jobs.” 🎯 “Women don’t have what it takes to lead.” But it’s 2025. And the data tells a different story. ⤵ 1) "Women are too emotional" Data: When men are stressed, they're more likely to be rude and hostile to their employees. Women tend to show respect regardless of their feelings. 2) "Women aren't committed to a job after having kids." Data: 98% of mothers want to return to work. Yet, they’re half as likely to get hired as dads and offered $11,000 less in starting salary. 3) "Women aren't naturally strong leaders." Data: Female-led startups generate 78 cents in revenue per $1 of funding, while male-led ones generate 31 cents. 4) "Women can’t handle high-pressure roles." Data: Companies led by women see 35% higher returns than those led by men. 5) "Women lack the authority to lead a team." Data: Zenger Folkman’s leadership study found that women outperform men in 17 of 19 leadership skills, yet only 10.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. ____________ The problem has never been women’s ability to lead. It's the biases holding them back. The data is clear—women don’t just lead, they deliver. And when we open more doors, everyone wins. Shoutout to the leaders, mentors, and allies who back women in leadership—your support matters. Let’s keep building a world where hard work and results speak louder than bias.

The outdated belief that women are "too emotional" to lead must be put to rest. This misconception not only misrepresents women’s leadership abilities but also overlooks how emotions can be a powerful asset in effective leadership. Also, the way emotions are displayed in leadership is still assessed differently based on gender, with female leaders often penalised for expressing emotions that defy traditional gender norms. However, recent research exploring how men and women leaders navigated the emotional challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic differently found that women may be less likely to let their emotions influence their leadership decisions compared to men. While anxiety levels rose across the board during the pandemic, women were less likely to let this emotion dictate their leadership style. Instead, they consistently prioritised team support and care, regardless of their own stress levels. The study drew on theories around emotions and uncertainty, revealing that men’s leadership was more influenced by their emotional state—often leading to less supportive behaviours under anxiety. Conversely, women refrained from negative behaviours and provided steady, family-supportive supervision, challenging the stereotype that they are more irrational under pressure. These findings underscore a crucial point: caring, empathetic leadership is not only a strength but a necessity, especially in uncertain times. As we navigate complex work environments, it’s time to dispel gender biases and redefine what effective leadership looks like. Read the full study here: https://lnkd.in/epnzQYJd Disclaimer: The study’s sample was primarily made up of cisgender men and women, mostly heterosexual, and therefore may not fully reflect the experiences of individuals with diverse gender identities and sexual orientations. Further research including these groups is needed for a more comprehensive understanding.

Women are often judged for their experience, while men are judged by their potential As I think about appraisals, performance reviews and promotions, during “that time of the year”, This statement by a seasoned leader from a global development organisation left me deeply introspective and reflective on the gender bias that research points to is the reason why we have a gender gap at the workplace. When it comes to career advancement, there's a stark reality: women are often judged for their experience, while men are judged by their potential. This discrepancy not only stifles women's growth but also holds back the potential of diverse leadership. Consider these startling facts: - **Performance vs. Potential:** A study by McKinsey found that women are 24% less likely to be promoted than men, despite similar qualifications. - **Performance Reviews:** Research by Harvard Business Review reveals that women receive more critical feedback on their personality traits rather than their performance, compared to men. - **Leadership Aspirations:** According to LeanIn.org, women are less likely to be encouraged to take on leadership roles, despite demonstrating equal or greater competence than their male counterparts. These disparities highlight a systemic issue that goes beyond individual biases. When women are evaluated solely on past performance while men's potential is celebrated, we miss out on a wealth of talent and innovation that diverse leadership brings to the table. The proof of work and future potential is seen as a basis for career advancement but why are the metrics so different for men vs women? I often think about the impact if we shifted our focus to genuinely recognizing and nurturing potential across all genders. - How might our workplaces evolve? - What new heights could our industries reach with truly equitable support? What are your thoughts on this subject? How can we create an environment where both women's experience and men's potential are equally valued and fostered? What steps can we take today to ensure that gender disparities in career advancement become a thing of the past?

Men are assumed to be competent until proven otherwise. Women have to prove competence over and over. Women are constantly told they need to be more confident. Speak up more. Sit at the table. Be bolder. But confidence isn’t the problem. Perception is. Studies show that when women are assertive, they’re seen as “too aggressive.” When they’re careful, they’re seen as “not leader material.” The issue isn’t that women need to change how they show up. It’s that the rules keep shifting to make them doubt themselves. Instead of telling women to be more confident, we should be asking: 💡 Why do we question women’s authority in the first place? You don’t need to perform confidently. You need a workplace that values your expertise as it is.

Throughout my career, I’ve seen the same pattern. When women are called “too aggressive,” the solution is always the same: Fix the woman. Tone it down. Tweak your messaging. Smile more. But there was never anything to fix. The system was built with bias baked in. We still expect women to walk a tightrope: strong, but not too strong. Decisive, but not unlikeable. Collaborative, but not soft. And when the balance tips? The feedback goes to her, not to the culture that labeled her. I’ve sat at leadership tables where a woman was called “aggressive” for showing the same conviction as her male peers. The room went quiet. And in that silence, the label stuck. That’s when leadership is tested. Do you let the bias slide? Or do you step in and say: “We don’t use that language here. Let’s focus on the substance, not stereotypes.” Because silence is agreement. And bias unchecked becomes culture. And it’s even more damaging when women reinforce those same labels against each other. That’s what happens when a system built on scarcity convinces us to protect our seat instead of pulling up another chair. Strong women aren’t the problem. The problem is a system shaped by cultural norms that were never designed to support women leading on their own terms. Leadership isn’t just who you promote. It’s what you permit. 💌 Subscribe to my newsletter on leadership and reinvention with the link in the comments

This is not a political post. It is a post about the reality women still face when they are in or embarking upon leadership roles. We can find abundant research about the unconscious, ingrained mental models we have regarding expectations of gender roles. It tells us that women embarking upon or in leadership roles are expected to project strength, but when they do so—they are seen as too aggressive. They are also expected to project empathy and nurturing, but when they do that, they are often seen as not strong enough and too nice. This predicament is called the “double bind” and it is real. To take this point further, in a repeat study in 2021, when college-age students were given a riddle to determine the existence of gender role stereotypes— only 30% of them could produce a mental picture of the role of a surgeon being occupied by a woman. The unconscious models we have ingrained in our heads of what makes a good leader are usually images of strong, assertive, and confident…men. While we have made progress in moving beyond these deeply ingrained models— study after study reveals a real dilemma. Women may be in leadership roles, but there is still a long way to go before they are truly seen to be just as qualified, capable, and deserving as the average man. #womeninleadership #womenempowerment #womenleaders #gendergap #womeninbusiness