Supportive Relationships at Work by Gender

Many of my female #coaching clients struggle to build and leverage powerful social networks, which can limit their career opportunities. Many women feel uncomfortable "bragging" about their accomplishments, preferring instead to rely on good performance as a primary career strategy. Furthermore, research shows that when they do talk about their accomplishments, doing so has a less positive impact than when men do the same thing. This new research from Carla Rua-Gomez, Gianluca Carnabuci, and Martin C. Goossen shows that women are well served by building high-status networks through shared connections. Women are about one-third more likely than men to form high-status connections via a third-party tie. "Third-party ties serve as bridges, connecting individuals to a high-status network that might otherwise remain out of reach. Such ties help both men and women forge valuable professional connections. But why are third-party ties especially beneficial for women? Because they are not mere connections; they are endorsements, character references, and amplifiers of capability. They carry the implicit approval and trust of the mutual contact. When a respected colleague introduces a woman to a high-status individual, that introduction comes with a subtext of credibility. It signals to the high-status connection that the woman has already been vetted and deemed competent by someone they trust. This endorsement can be a critical factor in gaining access to circles that might otherwise remain closed off due to conscious or unconscious biases." #careerstrategies #women #networking https://lnkd.in/eDBqbQcG

@Şule Alan @Gozde Çörekçioğlu @Mustafa Kaba @Matthias Sutter worked with data from over 2k professionals – some of whom were in leadership positions, and others not - from 24 large companies in Turkiye. Due to space constraints, I am only going to highlight the findings regarding the impact of working under male vs. female leaders but highly recommend reading the whole paper If you’d like to learn more about differences between male and female leaders in terms of different traits/behavioral tendencies. First, the researchers ask whether male vs. female leaders are seen by their subordinates as providing different forms of support: professional vs. personal. The good news is that male and female leaders are nominated by subordinates as providing professional support to the same extent. However, female leaders are significantly more likely to be nominated as providing personal support than are male leaders, and this increase is driven entirely by nominations from female subordinates. Now, it’s possible that female leaders acting exactly the same as male leaders and are merely perceived to be providing more personal support by female subordinates, but given the size of the effect, I find that unlikely. What’s probably happening is that female leaders are doing what male leaders are doing, AND MORE, because the researchers also find that cross-gender social ties are more likely under female leadership than male leadership. Meaning, female leaders are doing things to enhance the social relationships between their subordinates to a greater degree than are male leaders. But here’s the kicker: female leaders don’t seem to be rewarded for this work. Below are figures plotting the ratings of male vs. female employees on a variety of work climate indices as a function of working under a supportive (the employee nominated the leader as providing professional and/or personal support) vs. unsupportive (non-nominated) female leaders. When female leaders are supportive, male and female workers see workplace climate pretty similarly. But when considering unsupportive female leaders, you can see female and male workers diverge in their ratings. Female workers have especially low ratings of satisfaction under unsupportive female leaders. Another finding of note: when it comes to meritocracy, male workers prefer unsupportive female leaders (look at the higher job satisfaction ratings!) to supportive ones. In contrast, female workers are less satisfied regardless of whether they are working under a supportive female leader or not. This work suggests that females are holding female leaders to a higher standard than are male workers. And if we want to argue that females shouldn’t be held to higher standards, then there’s one of two options here for female workers: either hold male leaders to the same high standards that we seem to be holding female leaders, or don’t hold female leaders to a higher standard.

Companies say they want women to support each other. Then design succession plans where only one can win. I learned this the moment a senior leader told my manager he was impressed with me. Everything changed overnight. She had hired me. Championed my ideas. Defended my work to leadership. Then her boss said he was impressed with me. Suddenly I wasn’t her protégé. I was competition. Emails in ALL CAPS about things that didn’t matter. Public humiliation over targets I couldn’t control. Whispers: “She’s not really a great leader.” I thought HR would be safe. It wasn’t. “Your manager wanted to know what you said.” No confidentiality. No protection. When she found out? “You shouldn’t have done that.” For years I thought she was just mean. I was wrong. We were working in a system where only one woman at a time gets approval. When her boss praised me, it threatened something that felt limited. Her role wasn’t just about performance. It was about being chosen. This is how it often works: ❌ One narrow path to succeed ❌ Approval becomes scarce ❌ Women protect their position ❌ Then we blame each other I’ve watched this dynamic destroy teams and derail succession across multiple firms. This isn’t a bug. It’s the design. If you’re navigating a system like this, here’s what actually helps: ✅ Don’t rely on one sponsor ✅ Build visibility beyond your manager ✅ Document everything ✅ Find allies outside the chain of command ✅ Know when it’s time to leave Stop asking why women don’t support each other. Start asking who built a system where they can’t. Have you ever seen succession planning quietly turn colleagues into competitors? 💾 Save this if you’ve ever been labeled “the competition.” ➕ Follow Rene Madden, ACC for more truth about workplace dynamics.

7 things individuals can do to make workplaces more supportive for women and others, even while companies are scaling back DEI: ⭐ Learn and listen Pick up a book or listen to a podcast about a social issue you might not have considered. Ask a woman for her story and believe her. ⭐ Parent out loud Counteract the motherhood penalty by speaking out loud about your parenting responsibilities when in the office. This makes it safe for women to do the same and for everyone to feel free to create a better work-life balance. ⭐ Hold the interruptions Establish a no-interruptions rule in meetings so that women and junior voices have an equal say. When someone interrupts, politely stop them by saying, “I’m sorry, I don’t think she was finished.” ⭐ Mental gender swap When you pass judgment on a woman, ask yourself if the same judgment would apply if she were a man. Swap genders in your brain to see if her confidence really is aggression, etc. ⭐ Share your salary Help close the gender pay gap by going out of your way to share your salary with peers, mentees, or friends. Empower them with information so they don’t have to ask the awkward question. ⭐ Amplify underestimated voices When a woman or underrepresented voice speaks up in a meeting, amplify their comment by restating their idea and crediting them by name. ⭐ Two-second rule When a sexist (or any other discriminatory) comment is made, respond within two seconds to draw attention to the inappropriate behavior. Start soft by saying something like, “What?” and then ask the more challenging question if the situation allows: “I’m not sure you meant it this way, but let me tell you how that landed.” #alliesatwork #genderequality #genderallyship

How Do We Evaluate Emotional Support in Leadership—and Are We Addressing It Enough? Emotional support in leadership has always mattered, but in today’s environment of constant change, rising complexity, and higher stress, it has become a core capability. It not only shapes how people feel at work—it directly influences trust, engagement, and performance. Recent research from Griffith University suggests that leadership behavior—particularly around emotional support—may not always be evaluated in the same way. The study indicates that lower levels of emotional support tend to be viewed as more acceptable in male leaders, while female leaders are more often expected to demonstrate relational and emotionally supportive behaviors. . Female employees reported stronger appreciation for emotional support from female leaders. . Male employees placed relatively more emphasis on task-oriented guidance and goal alignment from male leaders. These findings are not just about perception—they raise a broader question about how leadership is developed. Many leadership programs emphasize performance, decision-making, and strategic execution. Emotional awareness is often included, but typically as one component among many. The question is whether it is addressed deeply and consistently enough—especially given its impact on team dynamics. There is also a more implicit challenge: expectations around emotional support can be uneven, yet this is rarely discussed openly. In some contexts, it can feel like a difficult—or even slightly taboo—topic to raise. Considerations for Leadership Development 1. Moving beyond surface-level focus on emotional intelligence If emotional awareness is treated as a “nice-to-have,” development efforts may fall short. Embedding it as a core leadership capability could lead to more consistent outcomes. 2. Making expectations explicit Organizations may benefit from clarifying what is expected from leaders in terms of both task delivery and people support—reducing reliance on unspoken norms. 3. Creating space for open dialogue Addressing how leadership behaviors are perceived, including potential differences in expectations, requires a level of openness that is not always present today. Balancing task orientation with attention to people is widely recognized as important. The opportunity may lie in how explicitly—and consistently—this balance is addressed in leadership development and day-to-day practice. Research: https://lnkd.in/eyEyST3T (paywall)