Stop coaching women to ‘lead like a man'

Fast Company

2 days ago

Sylvia was a senior partner at a consulting firm who decided to put her hat in the ring for the coveted CEO position. Four other internal applicants—all men—made it to the list of final candidates. Early in her campaign, Sylvia met with Andrea to talk about her strategy to win over the board and senior partners whose votes she would need to secure the CEO position. Sylvia deftly noted that, as the only woman in the running, her gender would be salient in the minds of the decision makers. As such, she wondered whether she should 'lead like a man.'
Too often, women in the workplace are told, explicitly or implicitly, that success means emulating male norms. Speak up more. Interrupt more. Show less emotion. But when women follow this advice, they're often penalized for it. The problem isn't that women need to change. Rather, our definition of leadership needs to change as it is still stuck in a mold that rewards masculine traits and sidelines others.
Based on our respective experiences researching gender bias at work and coaching senior executives on their communication skills, as well as our personal experiences, we've seen this pattern play out again and again. Women are coached to overcome imposter syndrome and project authority in ways that often backfire. Meanwhile, organizations suffer, missing out on broader leadership styles, emotional intelligence, and more inclusive decision-making.
Two urgent shifts are needed: First, we need to stop encouraging women to lead like men. Second, we must expand our understanding of what strong leadership looks like. Until we do, we're not just failing women, we're limiting our organizations' potential.
There are four specific ways women are often advised to 'lead like a man'—but instead of reinforcing gendered norms, we can coach everyone, regardless of gender, to adopt more inclusive, effective leadership strategies. Here are the four problematic approaches and what to do instead.
1. Avoid Weak Language
When outlining her strategy for obtaining the CEO role, Sylvia referenced how many stakeholders expected her, as a woman, to use weak language, but then penalized her for doing so. Sylvia decided that she would strategically use weak language with some old-school stakeholders but consciously avoid it with others. The question is, should this focus on weak language have come up at all?
'Weak language' is language that is tempered with disclaimers ('I don't know, but . . .'), hedges ('sort of,' 'I hope'), tag questions ('. . . don't you think?'), and apologies ('I'm sorry, but . . .'). Women are often faulted for using indecisive language, and we are all urged to avoid it.
So-called weak language can soften a message, convey interpersonal sensitivity, and build trust. As such, it can be a way to strategically position yourself with various cohorts. Recognizing the impact that it can have, we encourage a relabeling of 'weak language' to 'strategic language.'
This is about all of us being strategic or purposeful with our language, including when we demonstrate vulnerability. Certainly, leadership requires communicating with conviction. But let's coach everyone not to be overconfident when they speak. Leadership also requires curiosity and humility. Disclaimers, hedges, and tag questions are useful when we aren't totally sure and to express concern and humbleness. Strategic language can be a source of power and strength.
2. Be Authoritative
As a young information technology leader, Amy tried to emulate male colleagues through authoritative decision-making. But when Amy made a unilateral decision, she was surprised that she lost points with her staff. She quickly learned to seek everyone's input and ideally achieve consensus before making important decisions.
Sometimes guidance to be an authoritative leader is overt. A client of Andrea's who had served in multiple C-suite roles left her last position when her male CEO repeatedly insisted that she was too soft and she needed to 'be a killer.'
Authoritative leaders are also called visionary leaders, with their own vision for success. Men in leadership may default to using authority, as displays of dominance align with traditional male stereotypes and therefore tend to go unchallenged. While women may learn to use this approach in their attempts to establish credibility, it can backfire when they are misperceived as arrogant.
The problem with this noninclusive, authoritarian approach is that it concentrates decision-making with one person and increases the risk of failure. Overreliance on a single perspective can lead to blind spots, regardless of how competent or visionary that individual may be. Even the most capable leaders have limitations in their knowledge, experiences, and biases.
Particularly in less time-sensitive contexts, a participative, inclusive leadership style is better for everyone. Coach everyone to approach decision-making as a collaborative process. Invite input from all stakeholders, including those who may ask uncomfortable questions and those who typically remain silent. Building consensus will ensure all voices are heard, considered, and that everyone understands the rationale for decisions. This isn't about giving up control; it's about gaining valuable perspective and buy-in.
3. Master Self-Promotion
A former male boss once advised Amy to 'take credit' for the success of projects, explaining, 'Everyone takes credit for everything around here.' But while Amy had led or contributed significantly to many initiatives, she felt uncomfortable claiming to them to be her solitary achievements. Her teammates deserved recognition.
One of the most common questions Andrea hears from her female executive clients is: 'How can I talk about my work and strengths without sounding arrogant?' Notably, a leadership coach recently posed this question, proof that even those who coach others on confidence and communication can struggle with taking credit.
The response to women and men promoting their own work and achievements has very different outcomes. Research shows that when women self-promote, they are seen as less warm and likable, whereas men who do the same are seen as more competent.
Instead: Share Credit Generously
Everyone should be trained that strategic self-promotion is leadership, not arrogance, so that women aren't penalized for it. Then the solution isn't to promote your work any more or less. Rather, it's to take credit differently. Visibility matters, and as such it is important to promote our own work. But we all need to consider the extent to which we promote our own work, share credit, and spotlight others' successes. True leaders understand how to confidently communicate their value while also celebrating the contributions of those around them.
4. Don't Be So Emotional
After a recent workshop for female executives, Andrea heard from several women how effectively managing their emotions was a challenge. One woman said, 'My male colleagues can pound their fists and exude authority. Meanwhile, if I show emotion, I lose credibility.'
Another participant spoke up: 'Imagine having any conviction. Suddenly, I'm labeled as an 'angry Black woman!''
Typically, the leaders we admire exude an ability to stay calm and in control, especially in crises. It seems that leadership is synonymous with emotional regulation. At the same time, emotional 'outbursts' are interpreted differently for men versus for women. For men, displaying emotions is interpreted as passion or authenticity. For women, displaying emotion is a sign of weakness and lack of control.
Encourage everyone to lead with authenticity and discretion. Certainly, staying in control in crises situations is productive. But there are also benefits with sharing emotions and vulnerability. Communicating your convictions with passion can inspire a team. Leaders who demonstrate vulnerability also encourage a culture of psychological safety.
That said, this is not about being unfiltered. There is an important difference between authenticity and transparency. Filtering and discretion are key.
Redefining leadership
Sylvia's question of whether she should 'lead like a man' was not just personal. It reflected a broader problem faced by women in leadership: the unspoken expectation to conform to outdated, masculine ideals of authority and success.
If we want to cultivate inclusive, innovative organizations, we must redefine what great leadership looks like. Not by urging women to adapt, but by evolving the standards themselves. That's the only way we'll build a future workplace where all leaders can thrive on their own terms.