Ann Arbor Times

In a recent study, University of Michigan's Ross School of Business experts Julia Lee Cunningham and Sue Ashford explore the "leader-identity/competence paradox," a phenomenon where women often score higher in leadership effectiveness but are less likely to view themselves as leaders. This paradox is influenced by several factors, including lack of supervisor support, absence of role models, work-life conflicts, and gender biases.

Cunningham and Ashford suggest that a cognitive factor plays a significant role: women's discomfort with adopting the leader label. Those with a fixed mindset perceive leadership as an innate trait, while those with a growth mindset see it as an evolving skill. As noted in Ashford’s book “The Power of Flexing,” having a growth mindset allows leaders to view setbacks as learning experiences rather than indictments of their skills.

Cultural and organizational factors also contribute to this gender disparity. Women face systemic challenges such as limited access to senior mentors or sponsors and disproportionate assignment of nonpromotable tasks—work that benefits the organization but does not advance careers. The research highlights that women volunteer for these tasks 48% more often than men and are 44% more likely to be asked to take them on.

Women also face the "double bind" when demonstrating leadership competencies. Displaying traditionally masculine traits can lead to perceptions of aggressiveness, while collaborative approaches may be seen as lacking assertiveness. These dynamics make it difficult for women to identify themselves as leaders or for others to recognize their leadership potential.

Gender bias remains prevalent in organizations, affecting women's self-perception regarding leadership roles. Women who perceive greater reputational risk in leading are less likely to endorse a leader identity, resulting in fewer opportunities for external validation of their capabilities.

To address this paradox, organizations should examine structural barriers and culturally informed self-narratives about leadership. Practical steps include redefining how leadership tasks are distributed by recognizing and redistributing nonpromotable tasks disproportionately falling on women. Implementing external validation mechanisms can help since research shows women are less likely to self-identify as leaders even when demonstrating strong competence.

Organizations should expand their definition of what constitutes leadership by recognizing service-oriented behaviors like mentoring or building team cohesion where women often excel. By broadening how leadership is defined and valued, organizations could create more inclusive pathways to leadership roles.