Why do organizations expect women to be both empathetic and decisive, but not men?

augustus 10, 2026

Organizations expect women to be both empathetic and decisive at the same time, while men are rarely required to prove that same combination. This stems from deeply rooted gender stereotypes that define what “normal” leadership looks like: men are judged on results, women on results and style. The outcome is a structural double standard that limits women’s career opportunities. In this article, we answer the most frequently asked questions about this pattern and what can be done about it.

Where do these contradictory expectations come from?

The contradictory expectations placed on women in leadership positions are rooted in age-old gender stereotypes that determine which behaviors are considered “appropriate” for men and women. Women are naturally associated with care, connection, and empathy. Leadership is naturally associated with decisiveness, authority, and directness. Women in leadership roles are expected to embody both images simultaneously.

This dynamic is not intentional or malicious. It is embedded in the way people evaluate others. When a woman acts decisively, she is quickly perceived as “cold” or “difficult.” When she is warm and relationship-oriented, she is seen as “too soft” or “not decisive enough.” A man who exhibits exactly the same behavior is rarely judged the same way in either scenario.

The expectations women face at work are therefore not the result of a single manager’s or colleague’s random preference. They are the product of conditioned evaluation frameworks that have shaped how performance, style, and suitability are measured for decades. As long as those frameworks go unrecognized, they remain invisible — and therefore unchanged.

What is the “double bind” that women in leadership positions face?

The double bind is the situation in which women are penalized regardless of which leadership style they choose. If they are assertive and decisive, they are seen as unfeminine or unlikable. If they are empathetic and nurturing, they are considered too soft for a leadership role. There is no behavioral option that satisfies both expectations at once without inviting criticism.

This pattern is known in the literature as the “double bind” and is one of the most extensively researched forms of gender bias in organizations. What makes it particularly significant is that it does not involve explicit discrimination. It operates through implicit expectations that are activated the moment a woman steps into a leadership position or pursues a more senior role.

The double standard that affects women in leadership does not only impact those at the top. It plays out from the very first steps of a career: in how women are evaluated during performance reviews, how they are introduced to new colleagues, and whether or not they are invited to strategic meetings. It is an unspoken rule that is rarely named but constantly in play.

How does this double standard concretely affect women’s careers?

The double standard has direct, measurable consequences for women’s career development. Women are promoted less quickly, receive more negative feedback on their communication style rather than on their substantive performance, and are more frequently overlooked for strategic roles — even while performing equally well or better than their male colleagues on objective performance indicators.

The impact is visible at multiple levels:

Performance reviews: Women more often receive feedback about their “tone” or “attitude” rather than their results. Men are more frequently evaluated on what they have actually achieved.
Promotion opportunities: Men are more often promoted based on potential, women based on proven performance. This means women are structurally required to demonstrate more before taking the same step.
Confidence and ambition: When women are repeatedly penalized for behavior that is rewarded in men, many internalize the message that they are “not suited” for senior roles. This suppresses self-promotion and ambition.
Network and visibility: Women perceived as “too direct” are less often invited to informal networking opportunities. Women perceived as “too soft” are left out of strategic conversations.

The result is that the unwritten rules within organizations are structured in ways that systematically disadvantage women — even when an officially equal employment policy is in place.

Why don’t organizations address this pattern on their own?

Organizations do not address the double standard on their own because the pattern is largely invisible to those who are not affected by it. Leaders who have never personally experienced gender bias do not recognize it as a structural problem. They attribute the lower advancement rate of women to individual choices, lack of ambition, or “not being the right fit.”

Compounding this, organizational culture tends to reproduce itself. Those who already fit in determine who gets to join. When leadership teams are made up primarily of people with the same background and style, candidates who differ from that norm are unconsciously judged as less suitable. This is not a matter of bad intent — it is a structural consequence of homogeneous decision-making.

Gender diversity in the workplace is treated in many organizations as a communications issue or an HR initiative, when in reality it is a strategic one. Diversity policies that do not address evaluation frameworks, selection procedures, and informal power dynamics within an organization do not change the pattern. At best, they make it more visible without actually tackling it.

What can women do to see through and navigate this unwritten rule?

Women can navigate the double standard by first learning to recognize the unwritten rules within their organization and then moving through them strategically. It starts with the awareness that these rules exist and that they are not a reflection of your individual shortcomings. Understanding how the game is played allows you to engage with it more deliberately — without losing yourself in the process.

Concrete steps women can take:

Name the pattern: When you receive feedback on your style rather than your substance, ask follow-up questions. “What would you have liked to see instead, and why?” makes implicit expectations explicit.
Build visibility strategically: Make sure you are present in the conversations that matter. Visibility is not vanity — it is a career tool.
Learn the political landscape: Organizations have formal structures and informal power dynamics. If you only follow the official channels, you are missing half the playing field.
Use your style as a strength: Empathy and connection are not weaknesses in leadership. They are strategic advantages when deployed deliberately alongside clarity and direction.
Seek allies: Both female and male colleagues who recognize the pattern are valuable partners. Change happens faster when it is not only the woman who names the problem.

The goal is not for women to adapt to a system that was not designed for them. It is to understand the rules of the game so you can play it consciously and on your own terms.

What responsibility do organizations have to change this?

Organizations have an active responsibility to change the structures that sustain the double standard. It is not enough to wait until women are “ready” for senior positions. The real question is whether the organization is ready to evaluate, promote, and reward fairly.

That requires concrete interventions at the system level:

Evaluate on behavior and results, not on style: Make assessment criteria explicit and verify that they are applied in a gender-neutral way.
Train leaders on unconscious bias: Awareness alone is not sufficient, but it is a necessary first step.
Make diversity a strategic priority: Not as a quota, but as a quality benchmark for decision-making and organizational performance.
Create psychological safety: Women must be able to name the pattern without it being dismissed as complaining or “making things difficult.”

Female leadership does not thrive on its own in an environment designed around a different type of leader. Inclusion is not a byproduct of good intentions. It is the result of deliberate choices in structure, culture, and policy.

How we at Intouch help women see through this unwritten rule

At Intouch Women, we have been helping ambitious women understand the unwritten rules of organizations and navigate them strategically for nearly 30 years. We do not believe in adapting to a system that is fundamentally flawed. We believe in understanding the game so you can play it your way.

Our Masterclass Stratego for Women is our flagship six-month program, designed specifically around this challenge. Participants learn to:

Recognize the unwritten rules and power dynamics within their organization
Build strategic visibility and expand their influence
Navigate the double standard without losing themselves
Leverage their feminine qualities as a strategic advantage
Apply concrete tactics that work immediately in day-to-day practice

The program takes place in small groups of no more than 12 women and is grounded in our bestselling books and more than two decades of practical experience. No theory, no fluff. Concrete tools that work.

Ready to learn the rules of the game and shape your career strategically? Get in touch with us and discover what the Masterclass Stratego for Women can do for you.

Veelgestelde vragen

How do I know whether the feedback I receive is based on gender bias or a legitimate area for improvement?

A useful rule of thumb is to compare: do male colleagues in similar situations receive the same kind of feedback? If you receive comments about your ’tone’ or ‘attitude’ while a male colleague displaying identical behavior is praised for his ‘directness’ or ‘decisiveness,’ that is a signal of a double standard. When in doubt, always ask follow-up questions such as: ‘What would you have liked to see instead, and what difference would that have made?’ This turns vague style feedback into something measurable and open for discussion.

What if I name the double standard at work and am not taken seriously?

This is a common challenge, and it is important to keep the conversation as factual and behavior-specific as possible rather than framing it as a personal complaint. Use concrete examples, compare situations, and connect the issue to organizational interests such as talent retention and decision-making quality. Allies are crucial here: a male colleague or manager who names the same pattern is often heard more readily in many organizations. Actively seek out people who also recognize the pattern and can stand alongside you.

Is the double standard equally present in every organization, or are there sectors or cultures where it is less pronounced?

The intensity of the double standard does vary by sector, organizational culture, and country, but the pattern is widespread — including in organizations that consider themselves progressive. Sectors with a strongly hierarchical or traditionally male culture, such as finance, technology, and construction, tend to show the pattern more prominently. Organizations with more women in senior positions, explicit inclusion goals, and concrete evaluation criteria demonstrably perform better in this area. It is therefore not a question of ‘present or not,’ but of ’to what degree and how visible.’

How do I deal with the exhaustion that comes from constantly having to navigate a system that was not designed for me?

That exhaustion is real and even has a name: ‘identity tax’ — the additional mental load that women (and other underrepresented groups) carry from constantly having to shift between who they are and what their environment expects of them. It helps to be intentional about where you invest your energy: not every situation calls for a strategic response. Invest in a strong network of people who understand you, and seek professional support — such as coaching or a program like the Masterclass Stratego — to make the navigation feel less lonely and draining.

What can male leaders concretely do to break the double standard within their team?

Male leaders can be among the most powerful allies in dismantling this pattern, precisely because they are often granted more credibility in many organizations when they name the problem. In practice: during performance reviews, always ask whether style-based feedback is also given to male team members in comparable situations. Actively speak up when a female colleague is interrupted or her idea is taken over by a man. And promote women based on potential, not only on proven performance — because that bar is structurally set lower for men.

Does it help to adapt your leadership style to what the organization expects, or does that mean losing yourself?

There is an important distinction between adapting strategically and losing yourself. Adapting strategically means understanding the context you are operating in and consciously adjusting your communication or approach to fit the situation — without compromising your core values or authenticity. Losing yourself happens when you systematically suppress behavior that is actually your strength, purely to meet others’ expectations. The key is awareness: know why you are making a particular choice, so that you remain the one in control — not the system.

Who is the Masterclass Stratego for Women best suited for, and what makes it different from a standard leadership training?

The Masterclass Stratego for Women was developed for ambitious women who already have some professional experience and find themselves hitting walls they cannot quite name — unwritten rules, power dynamics, or a glass ceiling that is hard to pinpoint. It differs from standard leadership training in that it explicitly addresses the gender-specific context in which women operate, something that is rarely covered in generic programs. Rather than teaching women to ‘act more like a leader,’ the program helps them see through the unwritten rules of their specific organization and use their own style as a strategic advantage.