The Double Bind: Why the Same Leadership Behaviour Gets Rewarded in Men and Penalised in Women — and What to Do About It

In 1972, Virginia Schein published a study that would prove to be one of the most replicated and most uncomfortable findings in the history of organisational psychology. She asked managers to rate the characteristics of a successful manager, a typical man, and a typical woman. The overlap between the first two categories was substantial. The overlap between the first and the third was minimal.

Fifty years later, the finding holds. The characteristics associated with effective leadership — assertiveness, decisiveness, confidence, directness, strategic boldness — are still predominantly associated with masculinity in professional settings. Women who display them are not rewarded in the same way. They are penalised.

This is the double bind. And it is not a perception problem, a confidence problem, or a pipeline problem. It is a structural feature of how organisations process and respond to leadership behaviour — one with a robust evidence base and significant consequences for the performance of every senior woman who has to navigate it.

The Evidence Base

The research on this is extensive and consistent. Victoria Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann at Yale conducted a series of studies showing that when women expressed anger in professional settings, they were rated as less competent and less worthy of status than men who expressed identical anger. The same emotional display, in the same context, produced opposite evaluations depending on the gender of the person displaying it.

Laurie Rudman and Peter Glick at Rutgers documented what they called the backlash effect: women who displayed agentic behaviours — self-promotion, assertiveness, competitiveness — were rated as less likeable and less hireable than men who displayed the same behaviours, even when their competence was rated equally. The penalty was not for incompetence. It was for violating the implicit expectation that women should be communal rather than agentic in professional settings.

Frank Flynn and Cameron Anderson at Columbia Business School demonstrated the same dynamic using a real case study — the story of Heidi Roizen, a successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur. When students were given the case with the protagonist's name as Heidi, they rated her as competent but not someone they would want to work with. When given the identical case with the name changed to Howard, they rated the protagonist as both competent and highly desirable as a colleague. Same story. Same behaviours. Opposite social evaluation.

The McKinsey Women in the Workplace research, which has tracked thousands of organisations over more than a decade, consistently finds that women who are described as assertive or ambitious are rated significantly lower on likeability than men described in identical terms — and that likeability ratings have a measurable impact on promotion decisions, particularly at senior levels.

Why This Is a Performance Problem, Not Just a Fairness Problem

The double bind is often framed as an equity issue, which it is. But for the purposes of this discussion, I want to focus on something that gets less attention: the performance cost it imposes on the women who have to navigate it.

When you are operating in an environment where the same behaviour produces different outcomes depending on who is performing it, you face a choice that your male counterparts do not. You can display the leadership behaviour that the situation demands and accept the social penalty. You can modify your behaviour to avoid the penalty and accept the performance cost of the modification. Or you can attempt to find a path through that minimises both costs — which requires significant cognitive effort and sophisticated social intelligence.

None of these options is free. The first costs you socially. The second costs you professionally. The third costs you cognitively. And the cognitive cost of the third option — the constant monitoring, calibrating, and adjusting — is, as we have discussed, one of the most significant suppressors of peak performance available.

Behavioural economist Iris Bohnet at Harvard has documented this dynamic in detail. Her research shows that women in senior roles spend significantly more time than their male counterparts on what she calls impression management — the deliberate management of how they are perceived — and that this time and cognitive energy comes directly at the expense of the strategic and creative work that advances careers and organisations.

The Strategic Response

The research also points toward what works. Not what eliminates the double bind — nothing does that in the short term — but what allows senior women to navigate it with the least performance cost and the greatest strategic effectiveness.

**Frame before you assert.** Research by Alice Eagly and Linda Carli at Harvard found that women who prefaced assertive statements with communal framing — acknowledging the team, expressing care for the outcome, demonstrating awareness of others' perspectives — received significantly less backlash than those who asserted without framing. This is not capitulation. It is strategic communication that preserves the substance of the message while reducing the social penalty for delivering it.

**Build relational capital before deploying it.** The backlash against assertive women is significantly reduced in contexts where the woman has established strong relational credibility with the audience. Research by Hannah Riley Bowles at Harvard Kennedy School found that women who had invested in relationship-building before negotiating or asserting received more positive evaluations and better outcomes than those who had not. The investment is not wasted — it is a strategic precondition for deploying assertiveness effectively.

**Choose your battles with precision.** Not every situation that demands assertiveness is equally important, and not every audience is equally prone to backlash. Developing a precise map of your specific political environment — who responds to directness, who requires framing, where the real power lies, where you have accumulated enough relational capital to spend — allows you to deploy your leadership behaviour strategically rather than uniformly. This reduces both the social cost and the cognitive cost of navigating the double bind.

**Name the dynamic when it is safe to do so.** Research on what is called second-generation gender bias — the structural and cultural patterns that disadvantage women without explicit discriminatory intent — suggests that naming the dynamic, when done in the right context with the right framing, can shift the conversation from personal to structural. This is not always possible or safe. But when it is, it is one of the most powerful tools available.

The Deeper Work

All of the above are tactical responses to a structural problem. They are necessary, and they are effective. But they are not sufficient on their own.

The deeper work — the work that produces the most significant and most durable improvement in performance — is the development of a precise, evidence-based understanding of your specific environment. Not the generic double bind. Your double bind, in your organisation, with your specific stakeholders, in the specific political context you are operating in.

Because the double bind is not uniform. It is more severe in some organisations than others, more pronounced with some stakeholders than others, more costly in some contexts than others. Understanding precisely where it is most active in your environment — and developing a tailored strategy for navigating it in those specific contexts — is the difference between managing the double bind reactively and managing it strategically.

This is one of the central pieces of work in the Exceptional Performance for Women in Leadership programme. The Political Landscape Map, the Stakeholder Influence Strategy, and the Boundary and Advocacy Framework are all, at their core, tools for navigating the double bind with precision rather than reacting to it with exhaustion.

You are not imagining it. The research is unambiguous. And there is a way through it that does not require you to choose between being effective and being accepted.

---

*Geoff Greenwood FCCA MBA MSc is the founder of Neuro-Performance and creator of the Exceptional Performance for Women in Leadership programme.*