Can psychological safety be the missing link to achieve more women in leadership positions?

Can women be both powerful and likable? When women enter leadership positions, they are held to a different standard of likability. This double standard acts as a glass ceiling for women, and stands as an obstacle to realising gender equality, especially in leadership positions. A report from Catalyst summarised it well: "Women leaders are perceived as competent or liked, but rarely both."

What the research shows

Several studies have evaluated fictive onboarding of new leaders where name and gender were removed. Participants, both men and women, consistently evaluated a high-powered woman as more unlikable than a man with identical qualities and background.

Research by the think tank Agenda and the Oslo School of Management documents that women are held to a different standard than their male executive peers, even in one of the most equal countries in the world, Norway. A hundred students read the same successful career story. They rated "Hans" significantly more likable, a better leader, and someone they'd prefer to collaborate with. "Hanna" was judged to be a better parent. Gender stereotyping favoured Hans and failed Hanna.

A similar study at Columbia Business School documented the same pattern. Heidi Roizen, a successful Silicon Valley venture capitalist, became the subject of research by Professor Frank Flynn. He presented half his class with her original application, and gave the other half the same application with her name changed to "Howard." Students rated Howard and Heidi as equally competent, but Heidi was perceived as significantly less likable and less worthy of being hired than Howard, and even more selfish.

Research into how women are perceived when wearing more feminine or more masculine clothing at work adds further complexity. Women in feminine attire are perceived as lower in dominance and expertise; women in more masculine attire are perceived as lower in kindness and friendliness. A woman's choice of clothing can leave her perceived as powerful but unlikable, or weak but pleasant. Physical appearance also plays a more significant role in women's professional reputation than it does for men's — a complex balancing act women face daily at work.

Why this makes leadership harder for women

The documented negative correlation between power, success, and likability for women makes it even more challenging to embrace leadership positions and be appreciated as a leader. Women in leadership don't only need to accept the role of token or quota in the name of overdue change. They're also judged more harshly on likability, and face a mismatch between their qualities and a model of leadership traditionally designed around men. The assertive, often dominant behaviours we associate with leadership tend not to be viewed as attractive in women's leadership style. Men are expected to be strong, ambitious, and determined. Women are expected to be caring, trust-building, and likable.

Women are evaluated more on personal qualities than on competence. They need to prove they're competent, but not overly so, while we tend to simply assume men are competent — a different starting point for a conversation, a promotion, a hiring process, or a request for a raise. When women speak up, pursue their own goals, or are assertive and direct, they're often labelled too aggressive, too ambitious, or bossy. Research into voter attitudes shows that ambitious women receive less favourable ratings, while ambitious men are unaffected. It isn't an even playing field. It's common for women to overthink how they'll be perceived, whether they're delegating a task or taking charge in a meeting. And women also take on more office housework, in part to be perceived as nice and likable.

Moving forward

We need to empower and encourage women to become authentic leaders — leaders who understand the cultural stereotypes and biases they're navigating, but who also challenge the old rules and reinvent ways of leading that genuinely engage newer generations. We all need more awareness of the pressure we place on women to be amiable at work, on top of every other demand. Burnout and resignation are a real risk women pay for internalising all of these demands, including likability, and they often suffer in silence long before they give up. In our training and coaching sessions, we hear again and again how women overthink and jeopardise their own leadership development, out of fear of not being liked, and out of the double standards they're up against.

Authentic Leaders believes that knowing one's strengths, being able to apply them, and appreciating them, is key. Valuing your own unique talent and style, instead of trying to fit traditional organisational culture and its biases, can be liberating. Conversations that focus on contribution, potential, skills, and strengths, rather than personality, are more likely to stay authentic, and can short-circuit unconscious bias and assumption. They also make it easier to give constructive, developmental feedback, rather than the more subjective, bias-driven feedback women tend to receive more of than men.

A strengths-based approach can be a genuine path towards gender equality and more meaningful interactions for everyone. Being appreciated for your authenticity makes it easier to step outside learned behaviours and the likability trap. Likability is a real part of the conditions we set for one another, but knowing and owning your talent and career will help you show up as your whole self at work, rather than becoming a victim of the likability trap.

Finally, it's worth noting that this piece has focused on women in general. For women of colour, breaking the likability trap is often even harder still.