Imagine this scenario: Two colleagues — one male, one female — receive feedback from their performance evaluations. The male is praised for his "analytical" skills, while the female is commended for her "compassion." While both qualities are undoubtedly positive, which, in a corporate context, is more directly associated with strategic, decision-making capability?

Recent discussions with senior leaders in the field, paired with a detailed study, have shed light on the subtle yet pervasive gender biases present in language use in professional settings. Such biases have potential implications on career progression and opportunities.

The Underlying Issue

A conversation I had with a distinguished female leader emphasized the roadblocks women face as they climb the corporate ladder. The terms "broken rung" and "glass ceiling" have long been used to describe these barriers. After advocating for gender equality for several decades, she was disheartened to see these challenges persist.

This interaction reminded me a revelatory study I read: "The Different Words We Use to Describe Male and Female Leaders" by David G. Smith, Judith E. Rosenstein, and Margaret C. Nikolov, published in the Harvard Business Review in 2018.

Dissecting the language

In their research, the authors scrupulously reviewed language from over 81,000 performance evaluations, involving 4,000+ participants. The results?

• The top positive term for men: "Analytical."

• For women: "Compassionate."

• On the downside, men were most commonly labeled "arrogant" and women as "inept."

Now, while "analytical" and "compassionate" are both positive attributes, they cater to different strengths. "Analytical" aligns more with strategic planning, essential for business growth. In contrast, "compassionate," though crucial for team dynamics, doesn't necessarily correlate with task achievement or business strategies.

The implications

“ When considering who to hire, who to promote, or who to compensate, which person— with which attribute—takes the prize?

Likewise, who is retained and who is fired? “

Labeling someone as "arrogant" might point to a behavioral flaw but doesn't imply incompetence. However, deeming someone "inept" is a direct jab at their capability, casting doubts over their professional competence.

Way Forward

There's a pressing need to change this narrative. Here are some pragmatic steps organizations and individuals can adopt:

• Leaders: Implement a uniform set of evaluation criteria, related directly to job roles. This ensures consistency and fairness across gender evaluations.

• Employees: Open the dialogue with superiors about potential gender biases in assessments. Aim for these discussions to be educational, humble, and centered around constructive change.

Looking for a tip? If you’re lacking of inspiration, try using words often used for men!

Author: Aida Berkla

Source: Smith, D.G., Rosenstein, J.E., & Nikolov, M.C. (2018) "The Different Words We Use to Describe Male and Female Leaders". Harvard Business Review, May 25.