How Can Organizations Support Women to Identify as Leaders?

As Lee Cunningham and Ashford explore in their new article, “When Qualified Women Resist the Leader Label,” the "Leader-Identity/Competence Paradox" is observed in various data points. This paradox reveals that although women often score higher than men in leadership effectiveness, they are notably less likely to view or label themselves as leaders.

Contributing factors to this challenge include lack of supervisor support, absence of role models, work-life conflicts, and gender biases. However, Lee Cunningham and Ashford's research points to a more cognitive factor: women's discomfort in adopting the leader label, influenced by fixed versus growth mindsets. Those with a fixed mindset perceive leadership capabilities as innate traits, while those with a growth mindset see them as evolving skills.

Lee Cunningham and Ashford, along with University of North Carolina professor Laura Sonday, PhD ’21, explore these strategies and their insights on promoting inclusive environments in the following Q&A.

How do fixed versus growth mindsets affect women’s ability to see themselves as leaders in the workplace? 

As discussed in Ashford’s recent book, The Power of Flexing, leadership comes with many challenges. The skills involved are new for emerging leaders, and the challenges only get more complex as leaders rise in the organizational ranks. Having a growth mindset in which setbacks are considered learning experiences rather than indictments of skill helps leaders to stay “in the game,” continually trying to be more of a leader and to both face and cope with those challenges. A growth mindset helps leaders (and all people) feel empowered when experiencing challenges and setbacks. 

How do cultural and organizational factors contribute to the gender disparity of the Leader-Identity/Competence Paradox? 

In many organizations, women face systemic challenges like limited access to senior mentors/sponsors and disproportionate assignment of non-promotable tasks – work that benefits the organization but doesn’t necessarily advance their careers. The research shows that women volunteer 48% more often than men for these tasks and are 44% more likely to be asked to take them on. Over time, this reduces their opportunities to demonstrate and develop leadership capabilities. 
These organizational practices interact with deeper cultural assumptions about leadership as well. Even when women demonstrate strong leadership competencies, they face what researchers call the “double bind.” If they display traditionally masculine leadership traits, they may be viewed as overly aggressive, and if they adopt more collaborative approaches, they risk being seen as lacking assertiveness. These dynamics do get internalized over time, making it difficult for women to see themselves as a leader – and for others to see them as having leadership potential. The result is that they get tapped less often for leadership positions.

What are the most significant barriers that women face when attempting to change their self-perception regarding leadership?

The most significant barrier women face in ascending to leadership positions in organizations is still a systemic one – gender bias is alive and well in organizations, and women hoping to obtain greater leadership responsibilities suffer from it. These dynamics create self-reinforcing cycles, unfortunately. When women perceive greater reputational risk in leading, they are less likely to endorse a leader identity. This leads to fewer leadership behaviors, which in turn results in fewer opportunities for external validation of their leadership capabilities. Over time, this perpetuates leadership gender gaps despite women often having the competence needed for the position. Addressing this paradox requires examining both the structural barriers within organizations and the culturally informed self-narratives about what leadership looks like.

How might business schools like Michigan Ross incorporate your findings in supporting more gender parity in leadership roles?

Ross, primarily through the Sanger Leadership Center, already does a pretty good job of encouraging leadership and leader growth of both men and women through experimenting and self-reflection. It also recognizes the various styles and skill sets of leadership, including those that are more characteristically feminine. Ross might go further by helping to develop a portrait of leadership in organizations that’s not solely tied to holding positions of formal authority but recognizes that essential leadership comes from all sorts of people in all sorts of places in organizations. The more Ross can do to shift our thinking from solely heroic forms of leadership, sometimes colloquially called “the great man model of leadership,” the better. When we think of leadership as potentially shared in an organization, more people – including women – can see themselves as leaders.

What are some of the first steps an organization can take to support women in ascending to leadership roles?

Based on the research findings, organizations should begin by addressing both the immediate practical barriers and the underlying psychological dynamics. A critical first step would be to redefine how leadership tasks are distributed at work – particularly recognizing and redistributing non-promotable tasks that disproportionately fall to women.

Another key step would be to implement external validation mechanisms since the research shows that women are less likely to self-identify as leaders even when demonstrating strong leadership competence. This validation could involve formal processes for recognizing leadership behaviors, regardless of job title.  Also, managers could explicitly acknowledge leadership contributions as they occur.

Perhaps most importantly, organizations should expand their definition of what constitutes leadership. The research reveals that traditionally “non-promotable” service-oriented behaviors that women often excel at — such as mentoring or building team cohesion — are valuable leadership contributions that deserve recognition. By broadening how leadership is defined and valued, organizations could create more inclusive pathways to leadership roles.