A Systemic Blindspot in Corporate Ladders
Companies are perpetuating a flawed system that rewards 'vibes' over results, hindering the promotion of top talent. Research reveals that women consistently outperform men in their current roles yet receive lower ratings for "potential," which ultimately leads to them being overlooked for advancement.
The issue lies not with women's confidence but rather with companies confusing potential with competence. Factors like "executive presence" and "gravitas" carry significant weight, masking bias and rewarding self-promotion over substance. Calibration meetings designed to standardize ratings can actually amplify this dynamic, as confident storytelling often trumps comparable results.
This 'broken rung' gap between men's and women's promotion rates not only limits careers but also affects competitiveness. A study analyzing promotion data from nearly 30,000 employees found that women labeled as having less potential went on to outperform male colleagues with identical ratings.
Moreover, the problem compounds in how feedback is delivered. Women's performance reviews disproportionately focus on personality traits and labels, such as "abrasive" or "too nice," rather than business impact. Men's reviews, by contrast, center on business outcomes and technical skills. This creates a vicious cycle where women must prove what they have already done to advance.
The solution lies in evidence-based advancement practices, which prioritize measurable competencies over intuition. Companies can fix the problem by defining potential concretely, auditing ratings that gate opportunity, replacing confidence tests with readiness trials, banning trait-only feedback in calibration, reframing the opportunity itself, and monitoring language.
By implementing these changes, companies can build deeper leadership benches, reduce flameouts among newly promoted managers, and shorten time-to-impact on critical work. It's not about coaching women to project more confidence but rather about stopping the systemic bias that mislabels high performers as lower potential. The fix is simple: raising the evidentiary bar for everyone.
As a business leader, it's crucial to acknowledge this blindspot and act on the data. By doing so, companies can create a fairer and more effective promotion system that rewards results-driven leaders rather than those who excel at projecting confidence.
Companies are perpetuating a flawed system that rewards 'vibes' over results, hindering the promotion of top talent. Research reveals that women consistently outperform men in their current roles yet receive lower ratings for "potential," which ultimately leads to them being overlooked for advancement.
The issue lies not with women's confidence but rather with companies confusing potential with competence. Factors like "executive presence" and "gravitas" carry significant weight, masking bias and rewarding self-promotion over substance. Calibration meetings designed to standardize ratings can actually amplify this dynamic, as confident storytelling often trumps comparable results.
This 'broken rung' gap between men's and women's promotion rates not only limits careers but also affects competitiveness. A study analyzing promotion data from nearly 30,000 employees found that women labeled as having less potential went on to outperform male colleagues with identical ratings.
Moreover, the problem compounds in how feedback is delivered. Women's performance reviews disproportionately focus on personality traits and labels, such as "abrasive" or "too nice," rather than business impact. Men's reviews, by contrast, center on business outcomes and technical skills. This creates a vicious cycle where women must prove what they have already done to advance.
The solution lies in evidence-based advancement practices, which prioritize measurable competencies over intuition. Companies can fix the problem by defining potential concretely, auditing ratings that gate opportunity, replacing confidence tests with readiness trials, banning trait-only feedback in calibration, reframing the opportunity itself, and monitoring language.
By implementing these changes, companies can build deeper leadership benches, reduce flameouts among newly promoted managers, and shorten time-to-impact on critical work. It's not about coaching women to project more confidence but rather about stopping the systemic bias that mislabels high performers as lower potential. The fix is simple: raising the evidentiary bar for everyone.
As a business leader, it's crucial to acknowledge this blindspot and act on the data. By doing so, companies can create a fairer and more effective promotion system that rewards results-driven leaders rather than those who excel at projecting confidence.
- companies need to stop playing games with 'vibes' and actually measure performance. It's not about fixing women's confidence, it's about recognizing when a person is actually crushing it in their role 
. Calibration meetings are just a cover for bias, and feedback that focuses on personality traits rather than business outcomes is so outdated 
.
. But I've also seen women rise to leadership positions with impressive results - they just need a fair shot at getting there 
. It's time for companies to get serious about creating a promotion system that rewards actual competence, not just who can tell a good story or put on a convincing smile 
.
think its crazy how ppl get passed over cuz of vibes but still smash it in their roles lol i mean what even is "gravitas" anyway? 
research shows womens outperfom men all the time yet get lower ratings for potencial sounds like companies r more worried about how u look and sound than actually getting the job done 
. It's a classic case of short-sightedness, but I'm glad to see some business leaders taking notice and calling out for change 
.
. Can we please just get rid of these subjective ratings already?! Companies need to focus on what really matters: getting the job done 
. It's time for companies to get with the times and start valuing results over reputations. My daughter would totally kill it at her job if she had this kind of system in place 
.
.
its all about treating people fairly and giving them credit for what they actually accomplish 
. And what's with these calibration meetings? Sounds like a total waste of time... just use data-driven metrics already! 
I mean, how can we expect women to be taken seriously if they're being judged on traits like "abrasive" or "too nice"? It's time for companies to get real and start valuing actual business impact over personality traits. 
but seriously, this systemic blindspot is wild. Companies need to realize that just because someone is confident doesn't mean they're not a rockstar at their job. And yeah, let's be real, women are way more likely to get labeled as "too nice" or "abrasive" and it's like they can't win either way 
. Companies can do better, and they should start by acknowledging this problem and making real changes 
.
.
, but their actual work is meh. Meanwhile, women are being held back because of biases and stuff like "being too nice" 
. We need to get rid of this blind spot and start promoting people based on their actual skills and accomplishments 
And then there's the language we use to describe each other... "abrasive" vs "confidence." Which one is more important: can't we focus on results instead of personalities? 