Latest / Women at Work: Career, Leadership & Modern Work / The Likeability Trap for Women in Remote Work
Transcript
- Lucas: There's this data point I keep coming back to. A Stanford study from late 2025 looked at performance evaluations across 500 manager-subordinate pairs, all in hybrid or remote setups. And they found something that should make any woman leading a video call pause. Luna: I have a feeling I know where this is going — the likeability penalty, but in a slightly different context than we've covered before. Lucas: Exactly. We've talked about how women are penalized for being assertive in person. But the study found that on Zoom, the effect is amplified. Women who made direct, confident statements — no hedging, no uptalk — were rated 20 percent lower on 'warmth' by their managers than men who said the exact same things. Luna: Twenty percent. That's not a subtle shift. And it's specific to video, because the same study found the gap was smaller in in-person meetings. Lucas: Right. So the medium itself is adding a layer. The researchers theorized that because video compresses social cues — you lose body language, you lose the ability to read a room — people rely more on stereotypes to fill in the gaps. And one of those stereotypes is that a woman speaking assertively must be 'cold' or 'aggressive'. Luna: So the same behavior that reads as confident in a man reads as abrasive in a woman, and the video format makes that bias worse. Lucas: Yes. And there's a second finding that really struck me. The study also tracked interruptions. On video calls, women were interrupted about 30 percent more often than men. But here's the kicker — when a woman interrupted someone else, she was rated much more harshly than a man doing the same. Luna: So it's a double bind. You either get interrupted and lose your turn, or you assert yourself and risk being seen as rude. Lucas: Exactly. And the data shows that women are aware of this. The study surveyed participants about their strategies. Women reported using more fillers — 'I think', 'maybe', 'just a thought' — on video calls than in person. And those fillers correlated with lower ratings on competence. Luna: So the coping mechanism actually hurts you too. That's the trap. Lucas: It's a trap with no clean exit. But I want to talk about one real-world case that I think illustrates the problem and some potential ways through it. Luna: Please. Who are we looking at? Lucas: Two senior directors at a Fortune 500 tech company. I can't name them, but their stories were shared in a Harvard Business Review article last year. Let's call them Priya and Sarah. Both were up for a VP role. Both had strong performance records. Both led large remote teams. Luna: And I'm guessing their communication styles were different. Lucas: Dramatically different. Priya was very direct on video calls. She'd state her opinion firmly, she'd cut in when she had something to add, she'd challenge ideas explicitly. Her team respected her, but her peers in other departments found her 'intimidating'. Luna: Classic likeability penalty, playing out in real time. Lucas: Sarah, by contrast, had adapted her style for video. She would wait for pauses to speak, she framed ideas as questions — 'What if we tried X?' — she used a lot of affirming language like 'Great point' before adding her own take. And she was rated as highly collaborative and warm. Luna: But did she get the VP role? Luna: That is infuriating but not surprising. So what did the company do? Lucas: They trained their evaluators. Specifically, they did a workshop on the likeability penalty in virtual settings. They showed managers side-by-side videos of the same script delivered by a man and a woman, and asked them to rate each. Then they revealed the gender swap. Luna: I love that. It forces people to confront their own bias directly. Lucas: It did help. Over the next year, performance ratings for women in that department became more aligned with objective metrics. But the fix isn't just on the company side. Priya and Sarah also made changes. Luna: What did Priya do? She seems like she was getting punished for being herself. Lucas: She didn't soften her message, but she changed her framing. She started saying things like 'I'm going to push back here because I think this is important' — which signals intent. It's still direct, but it gives the listener a cue that she's engaging constructively, not attacking. Luna: That's a small verbal tweak that can change perception. What about Sarah? Lucas: Sarah worked on owning her expertise. Instead of asking 'What if we tried X?', she started saying 'I recommend we try X for these three reasons.' Same collaborative spirit, but with ownership. Luna: So both women adjusted without sacrificing their natural style entirely. They found middle ground. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the practical takeaway here. The burden shouldn't be on women to fix the system, but individually, you can make small shifts that reduce the penalty without becoming someone you're not. Luna: I want to pick up on one thing you mentioned earlier — the eye contact dynamic on video. How does that play into the likeability penalty? Lucas: Great question. The Stanford study also tracked where people looked. Women who looked directly at the camera while speaking were rated as more competent but less warm. Men who did the same were rated as more competent and equally warm. Luna: So even eye contact — which is supposed to build trust — backfires for women. Lucas: It does. Looking at the camera simulates direct eye contact. In person, that's a sign of confidence. On video, for women, it seems to be read as staring or intensity. The researchers suggested that women might benefit from occasionally looking at the camera but also looking down or to the side, as if thinking, to soften the impression. Luna: That feels like a lot to manage — eye contact, tone, framing, interruptions. It's exhausting to think about all the layers. Lucas: It is. And that's why the systemic fix is so important. But until companies train their managers, women are left to navigate this on their own. Luna: And speaking of navigating things on your own, I want to take a quick moment — and I mean quick — to say something about this show. You know, Lucas and I have been doing this for a while, and we keep the podcast ad-free because a handful of listeners chip in monthly through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. That literally funds the production. Lucas: Yeah, it's a small group, but it makes a big difference. It means we don't have to chase sponsors or squeeze in ad reads. We can go deep on topics like this without interruption. If you've ever found value in an episode, that's one way to keep it going. Luna: Exactly. No pressure, just the truth of how it works. And as Lucas said, it keeps us independent. Lucas: Alright, back to the research. Another thing that stood out to me in the study was the role of interruptions. We mentioned that women are interrupted more. But the study found that when women used a verbal tactic to reclaim the floor — like saying 'Let me finish' or 'I'd like to add something' — they were rated as more competent but also less likeable. Luna: So even pushing back against interruption comes with a cost. Lucas: It does. But here's a nuance some women in the study found helpful: using a collective frame. Instead of 'I'd like to add something', they said 'I think the team would benefit from hearing this perspective.' That shifts the focus from self to group, and it was rated less harshly. Luna: That's clever. It depersonalizes the assertiveness. Lucas: Exactly. And it aligns with what we know from research on women and negotiation. When women advocate for others, they're seen as warm and competent. When they advocate for themselves, the likeability penalty kicks in. Luna: So the same principle applies in a meeting. Frame it as advocating for the team's idea, not your own. Lucas: Right. And that's a tactic that can be used without feeling like you're hiding. Because you're still being assertive, you're just doing it in a way that doesn't trigger the bias. Luna: I think this episode is a good reminder that remote work didn't invent gender bias, but it has created new channels for it. And being aware of those channels is the first step to navigating them. Lucas: Completely agree. The technology isn't neutral. The platform shapes the interaction. And once you see that, you can start to work around it — both as an individual and as someone who might eventually change how her company evaluates talent. Luna: And maybe that's the long game. Enough women becoming aware, enough women moving into positions where they can rewrite the rules. Lucas: That's the hope. And that's a good note to end on. Thanks for listening, everyone.