Companies often judge talent based on vibes and storytelling rather than actual results, resulting in a "confidence trap" that costs them their best leaders. This phenomenon is particularly stark when it comes to promotions, where men are more likely to be promoted than women despite receiving lower ratings for "potential." Women, on the other hand, are consistently outperforming men in their current roles yet receive lower ratings for potential.
The problem compounds when it comes to how feedback gets delivered. Large-scale text analysis conducted by Textio found that women's performance reviews disproportionately focus on personality traits and labels, such as "abrasive" or "too nice," rather than business impact. Men's reviews, by contrast, center on business outcomes and technical skills.
The root cause of this issue is that companies confuse confidence with competence. Factors like "executive presence" and "gravitas" carry outsized weight in promotion discussions, masking bias and rewarding self-promotion over substance. Calibration meetings designed to standardize ratings can even amplify this dynamic, with confident storytelling trumping comparable results.
To fix this problem, companies need to treat potential as a hypothesis that requires proof rather than a halo that justifies advancement. This means defining potential concretely through measurable competencies, auditing the ratings that gate opportunity, replacing confidence tests with readiness trials, banning trait-only feedback in calibration, reframing the opportunity itself, and monitoring the language.
Companies can also track key metrics such as promotion speed, stage conversion, first-year impact, time to full productivity, and audit gap to identify where progress is blocked. By converting performance into advancement using clean, auditable criteria, companies can build deeper leadership benches, experience fewer flameouts among newly promoted managers, and shorten the time-to-impact on critical work.
Ultimately, this issue isn't about diversity or confidence but rather pipeline quality control. Companies that take a data-driven approach to leadership development will be rewarded with competitive advantage in markets that value disciplined execution.
The problem compounds when it comes to how feedback gets delivered. Large-scale text analysis conducted by Textio found that women's performance reviews disproportionately focus on personality traits and labels, such as "abrasive" or "too nice," rather than business impact. Men's reviews, by contrast, center on business outcomes and technical skills.
The root cause of this issue is that companies confuse confidence with competence. Factors like "executive presence" and "gravitas" carry outsized weight in promotion discussions, masking bias and rewarding self-promotion over substance. Calibration meetings designed to standardize ratings can even amplify this dynamic, with confident storytelling trumping comparable results.
To fix this problem, companies need to treat potential as a hypothesis that requires proof rather than a halo that justifies advancement. This means defining potential concretely through measurable competencies, auditing the ratings that gate opportunity, replacing confidence tests with readiness trials, banning trait-only feedback in calibration, reframing the opportunity itself, and monitoring the language.
Companies can also track key metrics such as promotion speed, stage conversion, first-year impact, time to full productivity, and audit gap to identify where progress is blocked. By converting performance into advancement using clean, auditable criteria, companies can build deeper leadership benches, experience fewer flameouts among newly promoted managers, and shorten the time-to-impact on critical work.
Ultimately, this issue isn't about diversity or confidence but rather pipeline quality control. Companies that take a data-driven approach to leadership development will be rewarded with competitive advantage in markets that value disciplined execution.
its all about how companies evaluate talent, like, if ur got the vibe and can tell a sick story u might get promoted even if u r not killing it 
, meanwhile women are getting more done in their roles but still gettin roasted for bein too nice 
. they should focus on what actually matters, business impact 
, instead of all that "executive presence" jazz 
. and whats up with calibration meetings? they just rewardin confident folks over results-driven ones 
. It's almost as if there's an unconscious bias at play, where men are often seen as more "results-driven" while women are viewed through a lens of personality and traits rather than actual performance 
. I mean, it makes sense that companies would fall for this confidence trap, but it's still pretty disheartening to see how it affects women in their careers 
.
. By focusing on traits rather than business outcomes, we're essentially giving men an unfair advantage when it comes to promotions 
. I love the idea of treating potential as a hypothesis that requires proof, and not just a vague concept that gets tossed around during calibration meetings 
.
. It's almost like having a data-driven approach to pipeline quality control – it's so much more objective than relying on intuition or anecdotal evidence 
? Meanwhile women get slammed with "abrasive" or "too nice" labels in their performance reviews 
. It's like they're trying to fit into a specific mold rather than letting them actually show what they can do 
. We need to stop judging people on vibes and start focusing on actual results 
, and start treating people based on what they actually know 
. If we want to build strong leadership benches, we need to focus on actual development, not just pretending someone's got the goods 
. Companies that take a data-driven approach are gonna be way ahead of the game 
️.
. it's like, confidence != competence 
.
, not just a feel-good factor 
. By tracking metrics like promotion speed and first-year impact, they can actually identify where progress is blocked and fix the issues