Latest / Women at Work: Career, Leadership & Modern Work / Why Women Leaders Face More Criticism for Small Mistakes
Transcript
- Lucas: Luna, I want to start with a story that's been stuck in my head for weeks. A tech executive I know — let's call her Priya — was a finalist for a board seat at a mid-cap software company. She had twenty years of experience, a clean track record, and strong references. Luna: Sounds like a slam dunk. What happened? Lucas: During the final interview, she mixed up a date on a quarterly earnings timeline — she said the company reported in February, but it was actually March. Minor, right? The kind of thing anyone could do under pressure. Luna: And they held it against her? Lucas: They did. One of the board members later told her that the mistake 'raised questions about her attention to detail.' He said it explicitly. One date error. Luna: I can't imagine a male candidate would have lost the seat over that. There's actually research on this. Lucas: There is. A study published last year in Harvard Business Review — they analyzed performance reviews across six major companies. When women made a mistake, the language in their reviews was 35 percent more critical on average than for men who made the same type of error. Luna: Thirty-five percent. That's not a small gap. So what do we call that? I've heard the term 'scrutiny tax' — does that fit? Lucas: It's exactly the right term. It's the extra weight women carry for every misstep, especially in leadership roles. And it's not just about performance reviews. Another study from the same journal showed that women leaders who make a public mistake are 40 percent less likely to be considered for a follow-up assignment than men in the same position. Luna: Forty percent. So one slip can actually stall your career trajectory for years. Lucas: That's the mechanism. It's not that women make more mistakes — the data shows men and women make errors at roughly the same rate. The problem is the asymmetry in how those mistakes are interpreted. A man's error is often seen as situational — 'he was under pressure,' 'he was tired.' A woman's error is seen as characterological — 'she's careless,' 'she's not detail-oriented.' Luna: That's the fundamental bias. And it's reinforced by the fact that women are often in roles where there's less room for error to begin with — they're already swimming against the current. Lucas: Exactly. And this gets compounded by what social psychologists call 'the double bind.' Women are expected to be both competent and warm. A mistake threatens the competence perception, and then the warmth doesn't help recover it. For men, competence is assumed unless proven otherwise. For women, it has to be proven continuously. Luna: So what do we do about it? I mean, beyond just being aware of the bias. Can individual women protect themselves? Lucas: One strategy that comes up in the research is what I'd call 'preemptive transparency.' If you know you're going into a high-stakes situation where a small error might be magnified, you can front-run it by acknowledging the pressure or the complexity upfront. Luna: Give me an example. Lucas: Say you're presenting a forecast to the board. You might start with: 'I'm going to walk through some numbers that are shifting quickly, so I'll double-check each figure as we go.' That frames any correction as diligence, not failure. Luna: That's smart. It sets a context where small corrections are expected. I've also seen women use what I call a 'reputation buffer' — building a track record of delivering on big, visible projects early so that one slip later doesn't define them. Lucas: That's a great term. And it's backed by data. In a study of venture-backed startups, female founders who had successfully exited a previous company were judged less harshly for mistakes in their second venture than first-time female founders. The reputation buffer works. Luna: But that's a long game. What about the day-to-day? The emails, the meetings, the small gaffes that get blown up? Lucas: One tactic I've heard from a lot of women in leadership is to have a 'second reader' for critical communications. Someone who can check if the tone or detail might be read differently than intended. It sounds small, but it can prevent those tiny errors from becoming ammunition. Luna: That's practical. And it also highlights that the burden is on women to work around the bias rather than on the system to change. Lucas: That's the uncomfortable truth. But there are also things organizations can do. For instance, when a mistake happens, leaders can ask: 'Would I react the same way if a man made this error?' That simple pause can re-calibrate the response. Luna: And structured performance reviews — where the criteria are clearly defined and evaluated independently — can reduce the subjectivity that lets bias creep in. Lucas: Right. A 2022 study from MIT showed that when reviews are based on specific, pre-defined metrics, the gender gap in criticism shrinks by more than half. Luna: That's encouraging. So there are systemic fixes. But for the woman listening right now who just got raked over the coals for a small mistake — what's the immediate move? Lucas: First, don't internalize it as a character flaw. That's the bias talking. Second, document your track record — and remind people of it. I've seen women keep a 'win file' — a simple folder with positive feedback, completed projects, and kudos. When a mistake gets blown up, they can say, 'I understand the concern. For context, here's my record over the past year.' Luna: That's a powerful reframe. It shifts the conversation from a single error to a pattern of performance. Lucas: And if the environment is toxic enough that a small mistake keeps haunting you, it might be a sign that the culture isn't set up for your success. Sometimes the best move is to find an organization that values what you bring, not one that penalizes every misstep. Luna: That's a hard but important conversation to have with yourself. Lucas: You know, if today's episode has given you a new way to think about your own experience, or if it's helped you articulate something you've felt at work but couldn't name — that's exactly why we do this. And the way these conversations stay free and ad-free is through listener support. If you find value here, you can buy us a coffee at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small gesture that keeps us going. Luna: Yeah, and it really does make a difference. We read every message. So thank you to everyone who has already supported the show. Lucas: Alright, back to the scrutiny tax. Luna, you mentioned the double bind earlier — I want to dig into one more dimension. There's evidence that when women apologize for a mistake, it can backfire. Luna: Really? I thought apologizing showed accountability. Lucas: In some contexts, yes. But a 2024 study from Stanford found that when women leaders apologized for a minor error, they were rated as less competent afterward — even though the apology was well-received in terms of warmth. Men who apologized didn't lose competence points. Luna: So the same behavior is interpreted differently based on gender. That's the scrutiny tax in action. Lucas: Exactly. So the advice for women is: acknowledge the mistake, but don't dwell in apology. Say, 'I see the issue, I've fixed it, here's what I'm doing to prevent it going forward.' That signals competence while still taking responsibility. Luna: I like that. It's less about saying sorry and more about showing control. Lucas: And for managers listening: if a woman on your team makes a small mistake, ask yourself honestly if you'd react the same way if she were a man. The data says you probably wouldn't. Being aware of that bias is the first step to fairer leadership. Luna: I think that's a great note to end on. Awareness, strategy, and a little bit of self-compassion. Lucas: And a win file. Don't forget the win file. Luna: Absolutely. Thanks for listening, everyone.