A few months into a new role, Sarah realized that the real alignment on the executive team happened outside office hours.
The work was going well. She was learning quickly, her manager seemed supportive, and her teammates helped her onboard. Over time, however, she began hearing references to weekend fishing trips her boss and teammates took together. They weren’t official work events, but she sensed their importance. In their small, family-owned business, relationships shaped careers, and she had never been invited. Notably, Sarah was the only woman on the executive team.
Rather than brushing it off, she raised the issue with her boss. She asked, tactfully, why she had been excluded. His response was sincere: he assumed she wouldn’t be interested or comfortable joining them on these trips and believed he was being considerate by sparing her the discomfort. While well-intentioned, the result was the same. She was excluded from a space where influence was built, and careers quietly advanced.
This story isn’t about fishing. It’s about how leaders, even thoughtful and fair ones, can unknowingly shape who advances and who does not.
Each year, we coach hundreds of executives who are genuinely committed to “supporting everyone on their teams fairly”. And still, many operate on unspoken assumptions that advantage some people while sidelining others. Drawing from research and years of firsthand interviews with women leaders (and those who coach them), we see a consistent pattern: good intentions don’t always translate into equitable or productive outcomes.
Below are common development pitfalls even strong leaders fall into, and practical ways to address them.
The Feedback Gap
Women at work receive feedback, but not always the kind that helps them grow.
Too often, feedback is vague, overly positive, or disconnected from what would actually propel their careers. Research shows that workplace context matters: women in male-dominated organizations often receive different feedback than those in women-dominated environments. Compared to men, women are less likely to receive constructive, task-focused feedback and more likely to receive praise that centers on personality or demeanor rather than performance.
Comments like “you’re great to work with” or “people really enjoy you” may feel supportive, but they don’t build skill or signal readiness for advancement.
Effective feedback requires shifting from impressions to behaviors. Rather than focusing on who someone is, focus on what they do and the impact of those actions. For example, instead of “you’re collaborative,” try “your ability to build consensus across teams helped us close this deal quickly.”
Managers can make feedback more actionable by:
- Focusing on observable behaviors, not personality traits – “You waited until the end to share your recommendation. We would have been better served hearing it earlier.”
- Linking feedback to clear performance expectations and outcomes – “To be considered for promotion, you need to drive cross functional decisions without waiting for alignment from me.”
- Balancing explicit strengths with specific areas for development – “Your preparation is excellent. To increase your influence, you need to speak with more conviction when you share your ideas.”
- Pairing developmental feedback with next steps and opportunities to demonstrate growth – “You will lead the next board update so we can see your presentation skills in a high-visibility setting.”
Feedback is most powerful when it’s a two-way conversation. Invite women leaders to share how feedback is landing and where additional clarity or support might help.
Navigating a Double Standard
Many women face a persistent double bind at work: conflicting expectations that make it difficult to succeed.
When women are direct and decisive, they’re more likely to be seen as competent but criticized for lacking warmth. When they are warm and collaborative, they’re often perceived as less competent, regardless of results. Either way, the target moves
For women of color, this bind is often tighter, layered with racial stereotypes that further constrain how leadership is interpreted. When organizations overlook these intersecting identities, they miss critical differences in how leadership shows up across people and contexts.
Leaders can reduce this double bind by:
- Expanding what “good leadership” looks like. Effective leadership includes multiple styles, not just the traits historically rewarded in your organization.
- Clarifying what actually matters. Define specific expectations for communication, decision-making, and presence so differences in style aren’t mistaken for performance gaps.
Clarity doesn’t eliminate bias, but it does shrink the space where bias thrives.
From Mentorship to Sponsorship
Many leaders proudly mentor women on their teams, and that matters. But mentorship alone isn’t enough.
The women we coach often have access to advice and encouragement, yet far fewer have sponsors: leaders who actively advocate for them when opportunities are being decided. Where mentorship helps individuals navigate the system, sponsorship helps shape it.
Sponsorship is different from mentorship. It’s both guidance and advocacy:
- Putting her name forward for high-stakes projects before she asks
- Recommending her for stretch assignments
- Publicly reinforcing her contributions in senior forums
- Taking a calculated risk on her potential, not just her past performance
This often raises an uncomfortable question for leaders: Who do I instinctively go to bat for, and who do I overlook? Patterns of sponsorship tend to mirror similarity and familiarity. Noticing those instincts is the first step to interrupting them.
Spotting Exclusion
Most leaders believe they spot exclusion if it were happening. In reality, bias is rarely overt. It’s structural and often hidden in everyday routines.
Exclusion shows up in who gets invited to lunch, who’s pulled into informal conversations, and who comes to mind first for high-visibility work. Much of real development happens in these informal spaces.
The goal isn’t to make every interaction perfectly equal. It’s to notice where access is uneven and do something about it. Watch for common patterns:
- Informal networks like golf outings, happy hours, group texts, or recurring coffee meetups. If these spaces influence trust, staffing, or visibility, they’re part of your development
- Shared history and inside jokes. Women and other underrepresented employees often enter teams without the same social capital. When key context lives in side channels, it’s easy to fall behind.
- Vague criteria for Terms like “natural fit” or “culture fit” often signal similarity bias rather than skill-based decisions.
What leaders can do:
- Pair newcomers with established leaders if informal channels are how people learn to navigate the organization.
- Create multiple ways to connect-cross-team lunches, meeting shadowing, rotating exposure to senior leaders.
- Define objective criteria before assigning high-visibility. Ask what capabilities the role actually requires.
- If women aren’t present in informal spaces or opportunity discussions, bring their names forward. Cite their work. Recommend them explicitly.
Sarah didn’t want special treatment; she wanted access to relationships, information, and influence.
When her manager understood the impact of his assumptions, he had a choice: defend his intent or change his behavior. He chose to change. He asked instead of assuming, widened the informal circle, and created space for Sarah to participate fully. He even offered to give her fishing lessons, which she gladly accepted.
This dynamic isn’t unique. For leaders, meaningful development begins when good intentions are matched with action: asking better questions, making opportunities visible, and using influence to open doors for others.
