Why don't women recognize themselves in the role of leader?

Given the same skills, many women struggle to define themselves as leaders in professional contexts. What can organizations and individuals do to bridge this gap?

Article published in the issue 1 January/February 2025 Mit Sloan Management Review Italy

byJulia Lee Cunningham, Associate Professor of Management and Organizations at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan.

Sue Ashford, Michael and Susan JandernoaProfessor of Management and Organizations at the Ross School of Business.

Laura Sonday, Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School.

Sarah,managerin a rapidly expanding technology company,consistently achieves excellent results. Her team outperforms others, her strategic insights drive innovation, and her emotional intelligence allows her to easily manage complex stakeholder relationships. From all points of view,Sarah is an exemplary leader. Yet, when asked if she considers herself one, Sarah hesitates.“I'm just doing my job,” he says with a shrug.

Sarah is not alone. In fact, research reveals a surprising discrepancy:although women often surpass men in leadership effectiveness, they are less likely to identify themselves as leaders.It's not just about modesty or impostor syndrome; it is ainvisible misalignmentbetween competence and identitywhich strongly alters the leadership landscape. Seeing yourself as a leader is often a preliminary step to being seen as such by others, butthis identification process is more difficult for women than for men, particularly in the workplace.

The gap between what women are capable of doing and how they see themselves raises critical questions:why do highly competent women shy away from the “leader” label?How does this reluctance impact their career trajectories and organizational outcomes? And, above all,how can companies bridge this identity gap to fully leverage their leadership talents?

The leader-identity/competence paradox

A comprehensive analysis of leadership effectiveness conducted byJack ZengereJoseph Folkmanprovides compelling evidence of women's leadership capabilities.Their study, which examined the data of over 60 thousand leaders through 360-degree analyses,found that women outperformed men in 17 of 19 key leadership competencies, including taking initiative, developing new skills, showing high integrity and honesty, driving results, developing others, inspiring and motivating, building relationships, collaborating and working effectively in teams, setting ambitious goals and promoting change.The women stood out above all for their personal development, integrity and initiative.

Our research reveals that, despite these findings,women are increasingly less comfortable than men in applying the "leader" label to themselves. The data we recently collected in aUniversity of Michigan survey of 275 adultswho work full time quantify this disparity. The study defined the “strong leader identity” as an average score of 6 or higher on a 7-point scale on four questions about leader identity. These questions assessed participants' agreement with statements such as“I am a leader”, “I see myself as a leader”, “If I were to describe myself to others, I would include the word leader” and “I prefer to be seen by others as a leader”. The results revealed that the32%of men demonstrated a strong leader identity, compared to25.5%of women.

Disparities between men and women in leader identity and leadership aspirations appear to emerge later in the career. A study conducted byBainfound that, in the first two years of his career, the43% of women aspire to hold management roles,compared to 34% of men.However, after just two years,the percentage of female applicants drops to 16%, while maintaining al34% among men. Women's confidence in reaching senior management positions showed a similar pattern:their confidence is halved as experience increases, whilethat of men remains almost unchanged. The studyBain, in which more than 1,000 men and women in the United States at all career levels were interviewed, identified several factors contributing to this change: the lack of support and feedback from supervisors, the absence of role models in senior leadership positions, theconflicts between work and external responsibilities and the perception of gender bias in promotion decisions.While each of these factors certainly contributes to change, we assume that these motivations overlook a more basic cognitive factor that is also at play: whether women feel comfortable seeing themselves as leaders.

Support the attributes of a leader versus a leader label

A previous search byOlga EpitropakieRobin Martinfound that, across cultures, people tend to apply the label of “leaders” to individuals in whom they observe specific attributes:dedication, dynamism, intelligence and sensitivity.In our study of 202 full-time workers, we found that people were significantly more comfortable describing themselves with these four prototypical leader attributes than with the label “leader” itself.Discomfort with this label versus these prototypical attributes was particularly pronounced among women.

This discomfort with the label of leader is not just semantic, but has tangible implications. In a second study, involving 324 participants from a variety of professional roles and industries, we showed that the more individuals feel uncomfortable with the label, the less likely they are to see themselves as leaders and, consequently, to pursue leadership opportunities.

When qualified women hesitate to see themselves as leaders, organizations miss out on leadership talent.

This self-perception influences the way women present themselves. Alan Benson analyzed more than 10 million public LinkedIn profiles across various industries and job titles, using natural language processing techniques to identify and classify self-reported skills. He checked for factors such as job title, company, industry and years of experience.Benson found that women are 16% less likely than men to report having leadership skills, even when they hold the same job titles within the same company. This gender gap in self-reported leadership skills was more pronounced in socially conservative states and companies with a low work-life balance rating on Glassdoor, compared to more liberal states and those with the highest work-life balance ratings.

Leadership is not the only skill that women do not declare compared to men:women on LinkedIn also have the12% less likely to report negotiation skills, but the9% more to highlight teamwork and 13% more to mention their support skills,even when they occupy the same roles as their male counterparts.

The words women use to define themselves have consequences, as iRecruiters often use self-reported skills to identify potential candidates for leadership positions.When qualified women hesitate to see themselves as leaders, organizations overlook leadership talent, narrowing the pool of potential leaders and perpetuating gender imbalances at higher organizational levels.What can organizations and individuals do to bridge this gap?

STRATEGY 1

Harnessing the power of narratives

Our research highlights that individuals' beliefs about the nature of leadership ability also play a role in their willingness to adopt a leader identity.We have found that people generally fall into two camps: those who believe that leadership ability is an innate and immutable trait(in other words, those who have a rigid attitude)and those who believe that leadership skills can be developed and improved over time(i.e., those who have a growth attitude).

We have found that individuals with a rigid attitude are more susceptible to the belief that the act of driving will damage their image with others, what we call image risk. On the contrary, those with a growth attitude are more resistant to image risk and consider leadership challenges as growth opportunities.

Most importantly, we discovered thatthese attitudes can be influenced.When participants were exposed to information that promoted a malleable view of leadership ability, the negative relationship between image risk and leader identity attenuated significantly. Organizations can apply this insight in the following ways:

Promote a culture of growth around leadership, emphasizing that leadership skills can be developed and improved over time.Share stories of leaders who have grown into their roles, highlighting the challenges they have overcome and the skills they have developed. Stories of internal candidates who have earned leadership positions in the organization can be particularly effective.Encourage leaders to share their experiencesof doubt and growth to normalize these feelings for aspiring leaders.

STRATEGY 2

Focus on leadership behaviors, not labels

Marjorie Rhodes, Amanda Cardarelli and Sarah-Jane Leslie have studied another label that is sometimes discouraging to adopt: that of "scientist". Their study found that students encouraged to perform specific scientific behaviors (through messages like "Let's do science! Doing science means exploring the world and discovering new things") showed higher levels of scientific engagement than those who were introduced to science with identity-enhancing linguistic markers (such as “Be a scientist”).

This research suggests that these linguistic labels may inadvertently reinforce the idea that identities are fixed and stable over time and that only some individuals (those who are “born to do so”) can rightfully adopt the label. Therefore, instead of applying a leader label, organizations can use behavior-specific language that can curb people's reluctance to move toward a leader identity. Consider the following actions:

Review hiring processes to focus on specific leadership behaviors rather than leader identity or trust.Modify development programs and performance evaluations to emphasize specific leadership behaviors, such as supporting daily teamwork, rather than emphasizing the broader leader label.Design training modules that focus on concrete leadership behaviors, such as facilitating effective meetings or providing constructive feedback.

STRATEGY 3

Provide external validation

Since many women are reluctant to self-identify as leaders, external validation is key.Scott DeRue and Sue Ashford argue that leader identities are co-createdthrough a process of claiming and granting:individuals act as leaders and others confirm this identity by following them.This concession is particularly critical in light of women's documented reluctance to adopt a leadership identity. Granting a leader identity through external recognition or formal designation can be especially important for women who would otherwise hesitate to claim this identity for themselves. To this end, organizations can do the following:

Implement formal processes for recognizing and celebrating leadership roles, including project-based or temporary positions.Encourage managers to explicitly recognize leadership behaviors when they occur, regardless of the employee's formal role. If they see leadership taking place, they need to name and affirm it.Establish sponsorship programs that match aspiring leaders with role models who can provide guidance and validation.

STRATEGY 4

Redefining leadership to include service-oriented behaviors

The way organizations define and evaluate leadership can have a significant impact on who identifies as leaders. If organizations reconsider their understanding of leadership and, in doing so, recognize the value of traditionally undervalued skills and activities, more people may recognize themselves as leaders. For example, Linda Babcock, Maria P. Recalde, Lise Vesterlund, and Laurie Weingart have shown that women are more likely than men to be asked to perform non-promotable tasks—work that benefits the organization but does not contribute to career advancement, such as hosting office parties or taking notes in meetings.They found that women volunteer 48% more than men for these tasks and are 44% more likely to be asked to perform them.These tasks can consume time and energy that could otherwise be spent on promotable activities. Organizations can recognize these tasks as opportunities to demonstrate critical leadership behaviors by framing them as examples of servant leadership. Ways to broaden the definition of leadership and broaden the pool of potential leaders include:

Reframe tasks such as organizing team events or mentoring as examples of servant leadership, highlighting how they contribute to team cohesion and organizational culture.Explicitly evaluate and reward employees who take on traditionally non-promotable tasks, framing them as demonstrations of leadership initiative.Recognize and reward non-promotable service roles as leadership behaviors in performance evaluations and promotion decisions.

How we think about leadership matters. If women do not identify with the word leader, they will not develop a leader identity, which will negatively impact their engagement in leadership development activities and effective leadership roles. If women have a fixed attitude about leadership, they will not participate in developing their leadership skills. Finally, if organizations continue to view some activities as indicative of leadership while ignoring others, and if engagement in these two types of activities is gendered, they will fail to grant leadership identity to women who are entitled to it.

Overall, these conceptualization problems represent a subtle but significant barrier to achieving gender parity in leadership.To bridge this gap it is not enough to offer opportunities or eliminate prejudices.We need to address internalized barriers that discourage talented women from embracing a leadership identity and broaden organizations' vision of what constitutes leadership.By implementing the strategies we have described, organizations can create environments where all talented individuals, regardless of gender, feel empowered to see themselves as leaders.