Latest / Women at Work: Career, Leadership & Modern Work / The Unlikable Expert How Women Are Penalized for Knowing Their Stuff
Transcript
- Lucas: Luna, I want to talk about a phrase that's been rattling around my brain since I read a Harvard Business Review piece last week: the 'unlikable expert.' Luna: That sounds like a trap I've seen play out in real time. Lucas: It's this subtle penalty women face when they demonstrate deep, unambiguous expertise. The research is from a multiyear study of over 200 performance reviews across five tech companies. And the finding is pretty stark: women who used technical language in meetings — specific jargon, hard numbers, confident assertions — were 40 percent more likely to get negative comments about their 'tone' or 'collaboration style' than men who did the exact same thing. Luna: Forty percent. That's not a rounding error. Lucas: No, it's a systemic bias. And the thing is, the women were objectively right. Their technical assessments were accurate. But the reviews framed that accuracy as a problem: 'She's too aggressive,' 'She doesn't listen,' 'She makes others feel intimidated.' Meanwhile, men who made incorrect or overconfident claims were described as 'confident' or 'taking initiative.' Luna: So the penalty isn't for being wrong — it's for being right in a way that threatens the social order. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the double bind that we've talked about on this show before — the assertiveness double bind — but this is a specific flavor of it. The 'unlikable expert' penalty hits hardest at the intersection of competence and gender. The more clearly you signal expertise, the more likely you are to be perceived as unlikeable, especially by male colleagues. Luna: I've experienced this myself. I used to work with a woman — let's call her Priya — who was the most technically sharp person in our product meetings. She'd come in with data, charts, the whole works. And after every meeting, there'd be at least one guy who'd pull me aside and say something like, 'She's brilliant, but...' and then list some personality critique. Lucas: That 'but' is doing a lot of work. It's the code switch from competence to likability. Luna: Right. And Priya herself started noticing it. So she tried a different approach: she started framing her deep knowledge as a resource for the group. Instead of saying 'Here's why your plan won't work,' she'd say 'I've run the numbers, and here's a risk the team should consider together.' She basically turned expertise into a shared asset rather than a solo declaration. Lucas: And did that change the feedback? Luna: Dramatically. Within two quarters, her performance reviews went from 'needs to collaborate better' to 'a team player with deep insight.' She was still the same person, saying the same things — just framed as 'we' instead of 'I.' Lucas: That's a powerful adaptation. But it also puts the burden on women to manage perception, rather than on organizations to fix the bias. The HBR study found that companies with more women in leadership actually had narrower gaps in these likability ratings. So the environment matters. Luna: Absolutely. But until those environments change, many women have to navigate the world as it is. So what else can they do? Lucas: One strategy from the research is to pre-acknowledge your own expertise. Sounds counterintuitive, but if you say something like 'I've spent the last five years studying supply chain risk, so I want to flag something...' — it actually reduces the penalty. You're naming the expertise upfront, so you're not seen as 'showing off' later. Luna: That's interesting. It's like you're setting the context for your authority, rather than letting others assign their own narrative. Lucas: Another tactic is to use what communication scholars call 'tag questions' strategically. Women are often told to avoid tag questions — 'Don't you think?' — because they undermine authority. But the study found that women who used tag questions in moderation were seen as more collaborative without losing credibility. The key is to use them at the end of a data-driven statement, not an opinion. Luna: So something like 'The model shows a 15 percent error rate, which is above our threshold, don't you agree?' — versus 'I think maybe we should check this?' Lucas: Exactly. The first one invites collaboration after establishing fact. The second one hedges before you've even made your point. Luna: It's a fine line to walk. And for women of color, the penalty can be even steeper. There's research from Catalyst that shows Black women and Asian women face distinct stereotypes — the 'angry Black woman' or the 'passive Asian' — which further complicates how their expertise is read. Lucas: You're right to bring that up. The 'unlikable expert' label isn't applied evenly. It intersects with race, age, and even physical appearance. So any advice has to be layered with that awareness. Luna: Let's talk about what organizations can do. Because I think the systemic fix is more important than individual coping strategies. Lucas: Absolutely. The HBR study recommended that companies explicitly separate technical competence from collaboration ratings in performance reviews. Right now, most reviews lump them together. If a manager has to assess 'technical skill' and 'teamwork' as separate scores, it's harder for bias to bleed from one category to the other. Luna: That's a structural fix I can get behind. Also, training managers to recognize their own bias — like that same study found that when managers were given a brief reminder about gender bias before writing reviews, the likability penalty dropped by half. Lucas: Half. That's huge for something so simple. It suggests the bias isn't deep-seated malice; it's a cognitive shortcut. A quick nudge can rewire it. Luna: Yeah. And that gives me some hope. But I want to ask you about a trend I've been hearing about: remote work. Some argue that when meetings are on camera, or even async, the expertise signal becomes cleaner. You can't rely on body language or charm as much. Does that help women? Lucas: There's some early evidence it might. A 2025 study from Stanford found that in fully remote teams, women's contributions were rated more on content and less on delivery style. The theory is that when you're in a Zoom grid, the 'likeability halo' — or its opposite — is harder to project. People focus on the slide, not the person's tone. Luna: But then the counter-argument is that remote work also reduces visibility and informal sponsorship. So it's a trade-off. Lucas: It is. But if you're already fighting the 'unlikable expert' label in person, remote might actually level the playing field on that specific dimension. The key is to make sure the expertise is still visible — written updates, data shared in channels, async presentations. Luna: So the advice for women might be: if you're in person, use the framing strategies we talked about. If you're remote, lean into the documentation of your expertise. Lucas: Exactly. And for managers listening, I'd say: when you hear yourself think 'She's brilliant, but...' — stop. Ask yourself: is the 'but' about her work, or about your comfort? Because her job isn't to make you comfortable. It's to be right. Luna: I love that. And you know, if this conversation has helped you think about your own career or how to support women on your team, that's exactly why we do this show. We're able to keep Women at Work ad-free and focused on these deep dives because of listeners who support us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's not a big ask — just a way to keep the conversation going without commercial breaks. Lucas: Yeah, we really appreciate that. And it directly funds episodes exactly like this one. So if you find value, that's where to go. Luna: Back to the research — one last thing: the HBR study also found that women who were rated as 'unlikable' were less likely to be promoted, even when their performance metrics were identical to male peers. So the penalty isn't just social; it's structural. It affects career trajectory. Lucas: And that's why we can't just tell women to 'be more likable.' We need to change the system that penalizes expertise in half the workforce. So I'll leave listeners with this question: What would your workplace look like if expertise were the only thing that mattered? Luna: That's a powerful thought to carry into the rest of your week. Thanks for being with us.