Impact of sexism on team performance

There are players who never put up great stats, but you keep them around because they make the people around them better. Back in my corporate life in the automotive industry, we had 6 product managers. One of them was Lisa (name changed). She had a small portfolio She had no visible ambitions for promotion She had an average performance So when Lisa was let go, nobody blinked. The decision was rational. KPI-driven. MBA-approved. 6 months later: → Collaboration died. → Trivial conflicts exploded. → Toxicity flourished. → The team fell apart. Why? Because the invisible glue had left the building. Lisa was the glue. She wasn’t the loudest. She didn’t care for credit. But she made others better. She kept things human. She did what every leadership book forgets: 👉 She made people want to come to work. But glue work isn’t seen. It’s not in your OKRs. It’s not in your bonus calculation. It doesn’t show up on dashboards — until everything breaks. And here’s the uncomfortable reality: ➡️ Glue work is gendered. Most of it falls on women, especially those who are "nice", "team players", or "not career-driven". (Translation: socially conditioned not to say no.) ➡️ Glue work is undervalued. Once the glue is gone, companies hire expensive consultants to run "culture transformation" projects. ➡️ Glue workers are punished. In promotion rounds, they are seen as steady — but not "high potential". Steady doesn’t win the race. Loud does. So, what’s the solution? ✅ Name the glue. In performance reviews. In team calibrations. In leadership rooms. Make it explicit. ✅ Make glue work valuable. Give it weight in promotions. Allocate part of leadership KPIs to it. Because team performance is performance. ✅ Stop romanticizing ambition only in one direction. The "hungry for the next title" narrative is corporate monoculture. Stability, humanity, and creating cohesion are also leadership. 👩👉 For women: Stop doing glue work unconsciously. Do it STRATEGICALLY! If you hold the team together, own that narrative. "Without me, you’re paying McKinsey to fix your mess." (And you won’t even get my discount.) Lisa didn’t fail. The system failed to see what she did. And many teams today are quietly rotting… ... held together by invisible glue that is unpaid, unnoticed, and one resignation away from chaos. Glue is never urgent.... until it’s gone. And when it’s gone, it’s not the glue that breaks. It’s everything else.

As International Women’s Day nears, we’ll see the usual corporate gestures—empowerment panels, social media campaigns, and carefully curated success stories. But let’s be honest: these feel-good initiatives rarely change what actually holds women back at work on the daily basis. Instead, I suggest focusing on something concrete, something I’ve seen have the biggest impact in my work with teams: the unspoken dynamics that shape psychological safety. 🚨Because psychological safety is not the same for everyone. Psychological safety is often defined as a shared belief that one can take risks without fear of negative consequences. But let’s unpack that—who actually feels safe enough to take those risks? 🔹 Speaking up costs more for women Confidence isn’t the issue—consequences are. Women learn early that being too direct can backfire. Assertiveness can be read as aggression, while careful phrasing can make them seem uncertain. Over time, this calculation becomes second nature: Is this worth the risk? 🔹 Mistakes are stickier When men fail, it’s seen as part of leadership growth. When women fail, it often reinforces lingering doubts about their competence. This means that women aren’t more risk-averse by nature—they’re just more aware of the cost. 🔹 Inclusion isn’t just about presence Being at the table doesn’t mean having an equal voice. Women often find themselves in a credibility loop—having to repeatedly prove their expertise before their ideas carry weight. Meanwhile, those who fit the traditional leadership mold are often trusted by default. 🔹 Emotional labor is the silent career detour Women in teams do an extraordinary amount of behind-the-scenes work—mediating conflicts, softening feedback, ensuring inclusion. The problem? This work isn’t visible in performance reviews or leadership selection criteria. It’s expected, but not rewarded. What companies can do beyond IWD symbolism: ✅ Stop measuring "confidence"—start measuring credibility gaps If some team members always need to “prove it” while others are trusted instantly, you have a credibility gap, not a confidence issue. Fix how ideas get heard, not how women present them. ✅ Make failure a learning moment for everyone Audit how mistakes are handled in your team. Are men encouraged to take bold moves while women are advised to be more careful? Change the narrative around risk. ✅ Track & reward emotional labor If women are consistently mentoring, resolving conflicts, or ensuring inclusion, this isn’t just “being helpful”—it’s leadership. Make it visible, valued, and part of promotion criteria. 💥 This IWD, let’s skip the celebration and start the correction. If your company is serious about making psychological safety equal for everyone, let’s do the real work. 📅 I’m now booking IWD sessions focused on improving team dynamics and creating workplaces where women don’t just survive, but thrive. Book your spot and let’s turn good intentions into lasting impact.

“If she’s left out of the data, she’s left out of the solution.” This isn’t just a slogan—it’s the hard truth many organizations overlook. When women’s experiences, contributions, and challenges are not captured in data, strategic decisions are built on partial truths. We cannot address what we don’t measure. I remember working with an organization during a DEI audit where gender representation looked fairly balanced on the surface. But when we dug deeper, the data told a different story: • Leadership roles were overwhelmingly male-dominated. • Performance reviews showed a bias in language—men were described as “ambitious,” women as “cautious.” • Promotions for women plateaued at mid-management, despite equivalent performance metrics. The solution wasn’t more policies or more workshops—it was more data. Data that captured not just headcounts but lived experiences. Data that told the story of pay equity, growth opportunities, and workplace culture. When women are left out of these metrics, they’re left out of the growth, the opportunities, and the solutions that move organizations forward. If you’re serious about equity, start with the numbers. Measure what matters. Because if she’s not in the data, she won’t be in the boardroom either. #diversity #equity #inclusion

A common experience of women and people of color involves taking their most prominent and high-priority qualities and disparaging them in an attempt to turn these strengths into weaknesses. This tactic undermines individual potential while perpetuating harmful stereotypes and biases. The strategy is simple yet effective: identify the qualities that make women and people of color stand out—be it leadership, resilience, creativity, or empathy—and then redefine these traits as flaws. Terms like "DEI hire" (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion hire) are used to diminish the value of these individuals' achievements, implying they are products of affirmative action rather than merit. This approach tries to invalidate their hard work to perpetuate a narrative that they are less competent or deserving than their peers. Historically, women who displayed assertiveness or ambition were often labeled as "bossy" or "aggressive," while men exhibiting the same traits were praised for their leadership. Similarly, people of color demonstrating resilience and innovation in the face of adversity were often depicted as exceptions rather than the norm, with their successes attributed to luck or external factors rather than their inherent abilities. In today's workplace, this strategy manifests through microaggressions and coded language. Women and people of color are frequently described using terms that subtly or overly undermine their achievements. A woman who is passionate about her work might be described as "emotional," while a person of color advocating for equity and justice might be labeled a "troublemaker" or "token hire." These tactics are part of individual interactions embedded in institutional practices. Performance reviews, hiring processes, and promotional criteria often reflect these biases, further entrenching the notion that women and people of color are less capable or deserving. The impact of this strategy is far-reaching affecting the individuals targeted shaping societal perceptions and expectations. By consistently undermining the achievements of women and people of color, this strategy reinforces stereotypes and limits opportunities for advancement. It creates a hostile environment where individuals are constantly forced to prove their worth, often at the expense of their mental and emotional well-being. Furthermore, this strategy perpetuates a cycle of inequality. By devaluing the contributions of women and people of color, it limits the diversity of perspectives and ideas in the workplace, hindering innovation and progress while also discouraging future generations from aspiring to leadership roles. Change requirest us to recognize and call out these tactics whenever they appear, actively questioning the language used to describe women and people of color, advocating for fair and unbiased evaluation processes, and promoting a culture of inclusion and respect.

This may not surprise you: Civil workplace conditions can lead to increased engagement. While incivility often results in team member silence. Yet teams often focus on individuals speaking up rather than designing group norms and behaviors that encourage participation. Why does participation matter? Research shows that teams can achieve better outcomes when they learn from ideas offered by group members with a wide range of experiences and backgrounds. Yet not all team cultures make space for those different ideas. To better understand the role of teams in shaping individuals' experiences, researchers conducted two studies: an online experience and a survey of employees across industries. They looked at people’s reluctance or willingness to speak up, and the conditions of the group (rude vs. respectful). What they discovered is that both men and women withheld contributions more in uncivil groups than civil ones. However, women were more likely to choose silence in the face of incivility. In addition to responding to rudeness, concern for gender backlash had women choose silence more often than men. This does not mean that women will not speak up. The researchers found that in civil groups, women reported speaking up to share their ideas just as much as men. What can teams do? ✅ Focus on team norms that encourage respect. This can include perspective taking. When having a different point of view, instead of criticizing, say, “Yes, and…” instead of “Yes, but….” ✅ Value curiosity. Focus on learning from different perspectives. Notice when you align too quickly on consensus or one person’s view and ask, “What are we missing?” During this time when the words in DEI are under attack, many of us are returning to the “why” we do this work. In many ways, inclusion is about respectful environments that encourage different perspectives to contribute to group outcomes. Reducing incivility not only supports wider contributions from all, but it can disproportionately help those who have faced backlash due to bias. In the end, when individuals contribute, teams win. Research by Kristin Bain, Kathryn Coll, Tamar Kreps, and Elizabeth Tenney and published in Harvard Business Review. #teams #culture #inclusion

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀 𝘂𝗽, 𝗵𝗲’𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲. When a woman speaks up, she risks being labeled "bossy." Despite progress, the way we perceive leadership is still deeply shaped by gender. Traits like decisiveness, directness, and confidence- essential qualities for leadership- are 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻. Women who embody these traits frequently face criticism, are perceived as less likable, and are labeled negatively, simply for demonstrating the same behavior their male counterparts are celebrated for. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀. It influences promotions, career progression, and women's own confidence in stepping forward to lead. ➡️ Changing this bias starts with leaders becoming aware of it: 🔸 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲. Would you describe your male and female team members the same way? 🔸 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗼𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆. Call out when you see biased labels being used, and redirect the conversation to objective assessments of skills, results, and performance. 🔸 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀. Let’s encourage strength, clarity, and confidence, regardless of who demonstrates it. Ambition shouldn't be admired in men and penalized in women. And leadership qualities shouldn't have gender labels. 💠 Real progress happens when we dismantle biases that keep talented people from thriving.

Around 76% of high-performing women receive negative feedback compared to only 2% of men—and it may be driving them to quit—-women are judged more critically, and on a more personal level than men. Rather than being given positive or even constructive feedback, top female staffers often experience unfavorable assessments, and they're more likely to be judged on aspects of their social presentation. About 88% of these outstanding women workers receive feedback on their personalities, while the same is true for only 12% of their male counterparts, according to the report. The report also finds that working women’s feedback is also often highly unactionable, meaning that criticism isn’t meaningful, or it’s unclear on what improvements need to be made. For every 1,000 words during a performance review, women experience twice as many instances of poor quality critiques compared to men. Snyder says this is a result of the laser focus around female staffers’ personalities. For example, performance reviews may revolve around a woman “being a joy to work with” instead of the success of the big project she just delivered. Positive observations are not generally about the work. They're about the woman's demeanor, personality, or disposition,"

Over the weekend, I read a column, “Work Friend,” where a guy wrote to complain that his coworkers giggled too much. His word not mine. Eric's colleagues' giggling really bothered him. At first, I thought, would this guy rather everyone be stony-faced and serious all the time at work? Lighten up, Francis (IYKYK). But Work Friend (new) columnist Anna Holmes surprised me with her response, which I should have thought of myself! She challenged him to consider that he was #sex stereotyping these coworkers. Holmes assumed the “people” that Eric refers to are female - she professed she “never heard the word ‘giggle’ used to describe a sound emanating from a man.” So she wondered if Eric’s real issue included that he did not like the way women sounded when they laughed. Then she told a personal story about calling out her dad about something he said to two loud-voiced women in a cafe that could be deemed to be sexist. Now, I don’t know if the “people” in this scenario are, in fact, women, but I’d bet they are. And, I don’t know if Eric is sexist or misogynistic or just irritable. I would bet, though, that #implicitbias, inherent sexism, is at work here (pun intended). Implicit bias is the natural human process of categorizing “like objects” together and the unintentional and unconscious judgment a person makes based on pervasive stereotypes. Like sex stereotypes. For example, a supervisor who perceives women as less confident than men can lead to women being passed over for promotions. As you can imagine, sex stereotypes harm women in the workplace. Just like microaggressions. According to last year's Women in the Workplace report, women who experience microaggressions struggle to feel psychologically safe and “self-shield” by muting their voices, code-switching, or hiding important aspects of themselves. Code switching is when women adjust their behavior, language, and communication style to fit in with the dominant male culture in the workplace. Look, I know that Eric’s complaint may be nothing. Of course! But it raises an important issue, and that is—employers would be wise to consider what role implicit or unconscious bias is playing in promotions, demotions, salary, terminations, and other terms and conditions of employment. What can employers do? 🤭 Be aware of the existence of implicit bias. Realize that judgments may be based on pre-formed ideas steeped in unconscious bias. Consider your teams, and monitor their decisions. 🤭 Educate supervisors and managers about inherent bias and discrimination. 🤭 Audit your workforce. If the impact of favoring or crediting your male employees over your female employees causes pay or promotion disparities, you may have a problem. Leaders can foster #inclusion so that employees feel they can bring their authentic selves to work rather than the type of “performance bias,” which may underly Eric’s complaint. What do YOU think? #emplaw