Latest / Women at Work: Career, Leadership & Modern Work / How the Performance Penalty Hurts Women When Changing Jobs
Transcript
- Luna: So Lucas, we talk a lot about the taxes women pay at work — the motherhood penalty, the confidence gap, the visibility tax. But there's one I hadn't thought about until I read a Harvard Business Review study from last year. Lucas: Let me guess — the performance penalty when you switch jobs. Luna: Exactly. It's the idea that when a woman moves to a new role, she's judged more harshly during the early months than a man would be. And those early impressions stick. Lucas: Right, and it's backed up by data. The HBR study looked at performance evaluations for people who changed companies or roles internally. They found that women's initial reviews were significantly more likely to include negative language — even when objective metrics matched their male peers. Luna: I've felt that. When I started my first big leadership role, I remember thinking I had to be perfect from day one. One small mistake felt like it would define me. Lucas: And that's the trap. The study called it a 'fresh start penalty' for women. New hires who are women get less benefit of the doubt. Their early slip-ups are coded as 'performance issues,' while men's are often called 'learning curve moments.' Luna: So it's not just about being new — it's about being new and female. The same behavior is interpreted differently. Lucas: Exactly. And the effects compound. The study tracked people for two years after the job change. Women who had a rocky first quarter took twice as long to get promoted compared to men with similar early reviews. Luna: Twice as long? That's a huge career cost from just a few weeks of adjustment. Lucas: And it gets worse in certain contexts. Remote and hybrid roles seem to amplify the penalty because there's less informal interaction. When you're not in the office, every email and every meeting becomes a data point. Luna: So if you're not there to build rapport, the early mistakes are all anyone sees. Lucas: Right. And women already report higher pressure to prove competence in remote settings. This study adds a layer — the pressure is not just perceived, it's backed by actual evaluation bias. Luna: What about men? The study showed they don't face the same scrutiny? Lucas: Not at the same level. Men who changed jobs got an average of 30 percent less critical feedback in their first 90 days. And their early mistakes were more likely to be framed as 'ambitious' or 'trying new things.' Same behavior, different label. Luna: So it's a double standard baked into performance management systems. Is there anything women can do to short-circuit this? Lucas: The study suggested a few things. First, set explicit expectations with your manager in the first week. Agree on what success looks like for the first 90 days — in writing. That way, you're evaluated against a shared goal, not an unspoken ideal. Luna: That makes sense. It forces the manager to be specific rather than rely on gut feeling. Lucas: Second, ask for regular feedback early. Not just at the 90-day review. Weekly check-ins where you ask: 'What's one thing I could do differently?' That puts any minor issues on the table before they fester. Luna: And it signals that you're proactive, not defensive. Lucas: Exactly. Third — and this one is harder — build relationships with peers who can vouch for you. The study found that women who had a strong ally in the first 30 days saw the performance penalty drop by almost half. Luna: An ally who can contextualize your early stumbles. 'Oh, she's still learning the system, but she's great with clients.' That kind of framing. Lucas: Right. The burden shouldn't be on women to fix this, but until companies redesign their onboarding and review processes, individual strategies matter. Luna: It's frustrating that we have to be so strategic about something as basic as starting a new job. Lucas: It is. And that's why we keep having these conversations. We want listeners to go into their next role armed with the playbook, not blindsided by bias they didn't expect. Luna: Speaking of the playbook — I know we don't run ads on these episodes. That's a deliberate choice. If this show has helped you navigate a career move or just understand the landscape better, there's a way to support that choice. Lucas: Yeah, it's at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, but listener support keeps us ad-free and focused on the content that matters. Luna: Exactly. And it's a small way to say this kind of deep-dive conversation is valuable. But back to the performance penalty — one thing I want to add: the study also found that women who changed jobs internally faced the same bias. Lucas: Interesting. So it's not just crossing company lines. Even within the same organization, a new role comes with that scrutiny. Luna: Right. And internal moves might be even trickier because your reputation from the old role can carry over — or clash with the new one. Lucas: That's a nuance most people don't think about. You'd assume an internal move gives you a clean slate, but it doesn't always work that way. Luna: So the takeaway is: whether you're going to a new company or a new team, be intentional about those first 90 days. Set the narrative, not just the goals. Lucas: And managers listening — you have a role too. Check your own bias when evaluating new hires. Ask yourself: would I describe a man's early mistake the same way? Luna: That's a good question to keep in your back pocket. Alright, that's our conversation for today. Thanks for being with us. Lucas: Yeah, until next time.