A company's perception of its employees' potential is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be an effective tool for identifying top talent and promoting leaders from within. However, when this assessment process is based on subjective judgments about confidence and personality rather than objective criteria such as performance and results, companies risk making costly mistakes.
According to new research, women in the workplace consistently outperform their male counterparts in their current roles but receive lower ratings for "potential." This discrepancy persists even after accounting for factors like performance and business impact. In fact, analysis by Textio found that women's reviews disproportionately focus on personality traits rather than business outcomes, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where confident storytelling trumps comparable results.
So, what is driving this phenomenon? Researchers have identified a crucial measurement problem – companies confuse confidence with competence. This means that factors like "executive presence" and "gravitas" carry too much weight in promotion discussions, often masking bias and rewarding self-promotion over substance. Calibration meetings designed to standardize ratings can also amplify this dynamic.
As a result, the loudest voice in the room is not necessarily the most capable leader. High performers are forced to invest more heavily in development or leave the company altogether. This "confidence trap" has severe consequences – less diverse leadership teams make weaker strategic decisions and correlate with lower innovation, reduced long-term financial performance, and ultimately, decreased competitiveness.
So, what can companies do to break free from this cycle? The answer lies in evidence-based advancement practices that prioritize measurable competencies over subjective evaluations. This means defining potential concretely, 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.
By taking these steps, companies can ensure that promotions are based on merit rather than intuition or personal biases. The benefits will be substantial: deeper leadership benches, fewer flameouts among newly promoted managers, shorter time-to-impact on critical work, and ultimately, increased competitiveness in markets that reward disciplined execution.
The question for executives and boards is no longer whether this bias exists – the data has settled on that point. It's what they're willing to do about it. By embracing evidence-based advancement practices, companies can build a more meritocratic pipeline, where top talent is recognized and nurtured regardless of gender or background.
According to new research, women in the workplace consistently outperform their male counterparts in their current roles but receive lower ratings for "potential." This discrepancy persists even after accounting for factors like performance and business impact. In fact, analysis by Textio found that women's reviews disproportionately focus on personality traits rather than business outcomes, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where confident storytelling trumps comparable results.
So, what is driving this phenomenon? Researchers have identified a crucial measurement problem – companies confuse confidence with competence. This means that factors like "executive presence" and "gravitas" carry too much weight in promotion discussions, often masking bias and rewarding self-promotion over substance. Calibration meetings designed to standardize ratings can also amplify this dynamic.
As a result, the loudest voice in the room is not necessarily the most capable leader. High performers are forced to invest more heavily in development or leave the company altogether. This "confidence trap" has severe consequences – less diverse leadership teams make weaker strategic decisions and correlate with lower innovation, reduced long-term financial performance, and ultimately, decreased competitiveness.
So, what can companies do to break free from this cycle? The answer lies in evidence-based advancement practices that prioritize measurable competencies over subjective evaluations. This means defining potential concretely, 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.
By taking these steps, companies can ensure that promotions are based on merit rather than intuition or personal biases. The benefits will be substantial: deeper leadership benches, fewer flameouts among newly promoted managers, shorter time-to-impact on critical work, and ultimately, increased competitiveness in markets that reward disciplined execution.
The question for executives and boards is no longer whether this bias exists – the data has settled on that point. It's what they're willing to do about it. By embracing evidence-based advancement practices, companies can build a more meritocratic pipeline, where top talent is recognized and nurtured regardless of gender or background.
. I mean, can you believe that companies are actually judging people's potential based on how confident they are? Like, what even is that? It's so not a good metric for success 
. And it's like, we're still stuck in this age where women are undervalued just because of their personality traits 
. I mean, come on! Can't we use some real data to make decisions instead of just throwing around buzzwords? 
. It's not that hard, right? And what's with all these calibration meetings? Can't they just, like, talk to each other about their biases and stuff? 
. Like, why not prioritize measurable competencies over confidence tests? That way, we can actually promote people based on what they do, not just who they are 
.
. I'm totally down for that 
!
. let's see more research on this topic and maybe some companies will take notice and make some real changes! 
Women (and men too) are being held back because they're seen as less confident, even when they're crushing it in their roles. It's like, can't we just judge someone by what they actually do? 
. Women are already outperforming men, so it's not like they're lacking in competence 
. It's just that their stories aren't being heard over all the self-promotion 
. We need to start measuring potential based on concrete competencies and development needs 
! Let's make this happen 
Like, confidence and personality shouldn't be the only things they care about when it comes to promotions? It's all about how they're affecting business outcomes right now. And what's up with this "confidence trap" thingy? It sounds like companies are actually making it harder for people to get ahead just because of their personality