Latest / Women at Work: Career, Leadership & Modern Work / Why Women Are Held to a Higher Competence Standard
Transcript
- Lucas: So we are at episode 50 of Women at Work — which feels like a milestone. And I wanted to mark it with something I think is quietly one of the most persistent and least talked-about hurdles women face in the workplace. It's the competence double bind. Luna: Competence double bind meaning the tighter rope women have to walk — where if they're warm and collaborative, they're seen as nice but maybe not decisive enough for leadership, but if they're direct and assertive, they're seen as competent but unlikeable. And harshly judged for it. Lucas: Exactly. And the research backs it up. There's a well-known study from Harvard Business School — Rosabeth Moss Kanter really laid the foundation back in the 70s — but more recently, McKinsey and LeanIn.Org's 2023 Women in the Workplace report found that women leaders are about one and a half times more likely than men at the same level to get critical feedback about their communication style. Not about results. About tone. Luna: That number — one point five times — really sticks with me. And it's not just a feeling, it's a measurable pattern. If this episode helps you put a name to that experience or gives you a way to talk about it with your manager, that's exactly the kind of thing that makes this show worthwhile. Lucas: Yeah. And if today was actually useful to you, the way these stay ad-free is listener support. Buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo — that's one small way to keep these conversations going without any sponsors. Luna: And it really does make a difference. Okay, back to the double bind — Lucas, you mentioned that women get more critique on tone. Can you give us a concrete example of how that plays out in a performance review? Lucas: Sure. There's a great case from a Fortune 500 tech company — I won't name them — where researchers analyzed years of performance reviews. They found that for men, words like 'decisive,' 'confident,' 'analytical' appeared far more often. For women, even when they achieved similar results, the feedback included phrases like 'you can come across as too aggressive' or 'try to soften your delivery.' Same behavior, different interpretation. Luna: Right. And the irony is that when women do soften their delivery, they can get dinged for not showing enough gravitas. So you're kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Lucas: That's the double bind in a nutshell. And it gets worse the more senior the role. One study out of Columbia Business School found that when women were described as having the exact same leadership behaviors as men — taking charge, delegating, setting a vision — they were rated as less likeable and less effective. The same behaviors that earned men a promotion earned women a warning. Luna: And this is where the competence bar comes in. Because the feedback women receive often implies they need to be better — more collaborative, more polished — just to be seen as equally capable. Lucas: Exactly. And it creates a real practical problem. If you're a woman reading a performance review that says 'great results, but your tone's a problem,' what do you do? Do you change your tone and risk being seen as less effective? Or do you double down and risk being labeled unmanageable? Luna: I think a lot of women try to thread the needle — they take the feedback literally and try to 'soften' — but then they end up watering down their contributions. And that can hurt their trajectory in a different way. Lucas: Yeah. So what are some strategies that actually work here? I've seen research from Catalyst that suggests one powerful tactic is to name the bias explicitly — but carefully. Saying something like, 'I notice you're focusing on my delivery style rather than the outcomes. Could we center the conversation on results?' can reframe the discussion. Luna: I love that. And I'd add that having a sponsor in the room helps. Someone who can say, 'I've worked with her on several projects and her directness is part of why she delivers.' That's harder to argue with. Lucas: Absolutely. And organizations can also help by training managers to recognize this bias. Google, for example, revamped its performance review process a few years ago to focus on objective criteria and reduce the influence of subjective language. They saw a measurable decrease in gender-biased feedback. Luna: But for the individual listener who's dealing with this right now, what would you say is the one actionable thing they can do starting this week? Lucas: I'd say start keeping a log. Every time you get feedback, note whether it's about your actual work or about your style. If you start seeing a pattern — three reviews in a row where the only negative is about your 'tone' or 'approach' — you have data. And data is hard to dismiss. Luna: That's smart. And then you can bring that data to your boss or your HR partner and say, 'I notice a pattern here. Can we align on what great performance actually looks like?' Lucas: And if you have a mentor or sponsor, share it with them too. They can advocate on your behalf in ways you can't for yourself. Luna: There's also a broader question: how do we shift the culture so that women don't have to manage this extra cognitive load in the first place? That's a bigger project. Lucas: It is. And that's where things like structured interviews, anonymous performance scoring, and diverse hiring panels can help. But those are systemic changes. For today, I think the most valuable thing is giving people the language to push back on biased feedback when they receive it. Luna: Right. Because if you can't name it, you can't fight it. And the first step is knowing that you're not imagining it — the research is clear that this is real. Lucas: Yeah. And I think the end goal isn't to make women act more like men, or to make them act more like what others expect women to be. It's to create a standard where competence is evaluated on results, not on how closely someone matches a stereotype. Luna: Well said. So to wrap up episode 50: the competence double bind is real, it's measurable, and you have tools to address it. If you want to dive deeper, we'll link to the McKinsey report and some of the other studies in the show notes. Lucas: And as always, if this episode resonated, please consider supporting the show at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It keeps us independent and ad-free. Thanks for being with us for 50 episodes. Luna: Here's to the next 50.