We have become very good at telling women what to do differently at work. Speak up more. Be more visible. Build stronger networks. Ask for the promotion.
There is value in helping people build these skills, and I have worked with many women who benefited from learning to advocate for themselves. The problem starts when confidence becomes the explanation for a much larger organisational pattern.
When a woman has done strong work for years and isn’t progressing, the conversation quickly turns to her. Before we have it, we should look at what came before it.
How assignments become evidence
Take two people at the same level, both rated as strong performers.
One is given the difficult client because her manager thinks she’s ready. She starts attending senior meetings, presents to leadership and eventually leads a cross-functional project.
The other becomes the person everyone relies on to get internal work out the door, because she is exceptionally dependable. Her work is strong, but it happens largely behind the scenes.
Twelve months later, one has a stronger story about strategic thinking and stakeholder management. The other has a strong record of delivery. We describe the first as having broader experience.
But that experience didn’t appear by itself. Someone decided who would take the client, represent the team and lead the project when the stakes were high. We call these staffing decisions. They are also career decisions, and managers make hundreds of them without thinking of them as talent development.
Why the gap widens without anyone intending it
I have seen the same people receive career-building opportunities repeatedly because they have already shown they can handle them. From the manager’s side, the decision is sensible. From a systems side, it creates a loop: people who have had opportunities look more experienced, and that experience makes them easier to choose again.
Nobody has to consciously exclude anyone for this to happen. A series of individually reasonable decisions can produce a very consistent outcome.
Why we default to fixing the person
It is easier to send someone to a leadership workshop than to ask a manager why the same three people keep getting the most visible assignments. Mentoring and visibility goals may help. But if a person has never been given a senior-facing assignment, we should be careful about telling her she needs more senior visibility.
Questions for your next talent review
A talent review looks at the end of a process. It should also look at how the evidence was built:
- Who has had access to commercially important work?
- Who has managed senior stakeholders or made decisions with consequences?
- Who has been sponsored for a stretch assignment?
- Who has spent years being called dependable and kept on execution-heavy work?
None of this removes individual accountability. If someone needs stronger influencing skills, say so and help her build them. But there is a difference between asking someone to develop a capability and withholding the experience through which it can be demonstrated.
A better development question
“What does she need to develop?” is a fair question, but it shouldn’t be the only one. We should also ask: “What experience does she need next, and who will create access to it?”
Before we ask a woman to become more confident, perhaps we should ask whether we have given her enough opportunities to look ready.
Link – https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-keep-telling-women-more-confident-looking-right-sonica-k4crc/