When potential and proof are judged differently

Insights piece

Men are more likely to be judged on their potential. Women are more likely to be evaluated on an established record of achievement.

That is one of the more uncomfortable findings from a recent Harvard Business Review article looking back over 60 years of research into how men and women experience leadership.

The same difference appears when things go wrong. A man’s mistake may be treated as an exception. A woman’s is more likely to be remembered as evidence of a pattern.

I found the article through executive coach Muriel Wilkins, who asks how we help women advance without trying to fix them.

It is a good question, because so much familiar leadership advice starts with what the woman needs to do differently. Be more visible. Speak with more confidence. Find a sponsor. Ask for stretch opportunities.

Some of that advice may be useful. But if women are being judged by a different standard, there is a risk that development becomes about helping them work harder to meet it.

That does not mean assuming every piece of critical feedback is biased, or that there is nothing someone might usefully change. Feedback can reveal an impact we had not recognised and point towards something we need to practise.

But before a comment such as “you need more presence”, “you’re not quite ready” or “you need to be more strategic” becomes a development goal, it needs examining.

What has the person actually seen or heard that led them to that view? Can they give a specific example? What impact did it have? What would they expect to see instead?

Those are not defensive questions. They are what turns a broad judgement into feedback someone can actually use.

Seniority may make an opinion influential, particularly if that person has a say in promotion or progression. It does not automatically make the opinion objective.

This is where I think coaching can be particularly useful. The work is not to decide that the individual is the problem, or that the organisation is. It is to separate the person, the feedback and the context.

Is there evidence of a pattern, or has one situation taken on too much significance? Does other evidence support or challenge the feedback? Is the expectation clear and reasonable? How well placed is this particular person to judge? Is this something the individual wants to change because it would make them a more effective leader, or because they are trying to fit somebody else’s picture of what a leader should look like?

Visibility raises a similar problem.

When someone is told to make their impact more visible, it can feel as though there are only two choices. I sometimes put the extremes on a scale. At level one, you say nothing and hope your work is noticed. At level ten is the person you dread becoming: the egotistical self-promoter who takes the credit for everything.

The useful part is filling in the space between them.

That might mean explaining what changed as a result of a piece of work, rather than simply reporting that it is finished. It might mean being clear about the decisions you led while also recognising the contribution of the team. Or it might mean keeping a record of achievements so that a promotion conversation does not depend on what you or your manager happen to remember.

The aim is not to turn someone into a different person. It is to help them find a way of talking about their contribution that feels honest and still sounds like them.

Making that contribution visible matters when potential is not assumed equally. But it is a practical response to the situation, not a solution to the bias behind it.

Organisations still need to look at who receives the visible assignments, whose potential is recognised, who gets sponsored and whose mistakes are treated as part of learning. They need to ask whether apparently objective promotion decisions are relying on different standards of proof.

Coaching cannot make those systems fair. But it can stop one person’s opinion becoming a verdict and help someone decide what is genuinely theirs to act on.

The point is not to make women better at carrying an unequal system. It is to help them see what is happening, make deliberate choices within it and stop taking responsibility for everything around them.

The organisation still has work to do.