The phrase "lacks executive presence" is holding back women leaders

More than two years have passed since Sheryl Sandberg launched the campaign to “Ban Bossy” for young girls. The idea is to shift the perceptions of girls' strong behaviors from being labelled "bossy" to recognizing their leadership potential. Yet the penalties do not end in girlhood. Women also suffer from similar labels. Many women have been called bossy, or the adult version of the word. In many instances, that criticism reflects stereotypes about who makes good leaders. My solution? A campaign to advance women leaders: Ban “Executive Presence.”

“Executive Presence” is often defined as commanding a room, having gravitas or communicating decisively. This critical leadership characteristic is rarely based on demonstrated behaviors, but instead on whether others perceive you as having it.

I recall my first experience of being called “bossy” as a manager. In a 360 review, a peer wrote that I was “not good at working with people who were ‘slower’ than me.” As a result, my boss told me I needed to improve my team leadership. I later learned what he meant. He thought I needed to share more context before launching into recommendations. If I had gotten that specific feedback, I would have made those changes. Instead, I had to deal with growing perceptions that I was not suited for leadership.

Women face the well-documented phenomenon, the likeability competence trade-off. In other words,  the very behaviors expected of us as leaders (being assertive, decisive and authoritative) evoke a penalty for not being simultaneously likeable enough (supportive, compassionate, friendly). Men do not face such a penalty. In men, those same assertive behaviors are called leaderly. Thus, women can face a penalty when they assert leadership.

“Lacks executive presence” can therefore be a short-cut for….well, bossy.

My solution? Ban "lacks executive presence" from your lexicon of feedback to offer women.

The steps?

1. Substitute specific criteria for the vague notion of executive presence. Identify the skills, behaviors and business outcomes required to demonstrate executive presence. Then give specific and actionable feedback based on those skills and behaviors.
2. Block undue criticism of women’s communication styles (executive presence) when evaluating talent. One HR business partner was discussing a senior woman candidate with the executive hiring manager. He criticized the candidate for negotiating her compensation package. Instead of calling out his behavior, the HRBP asked a thought-provoking question. She queried, “Then how did you negotiate your own compensation package?” In that moment, the executive saw that he had criticized this candidate for same behaviors he had used in his own interview process. He reconsidered and made her the offer.
3. Ensure feedback focuses on valued skills and behaviors, instead of personalities. While our research shows that women are more likely to receive vague, unhelpful feedback, others also face penalties. For example, men were more likely to receive comments that their communication style was “too soft” (60% of references versus 40% in women’s). Thus, personality-based criticism can disadvantage people who do not fit a leadership stereotype. Given that women are only 4.0% of Fortune 500 CEOs, and the numbers are even lower for women of color, removing personality-based feedback is one mechanism to provide broader access to the executive suite.

Together, we can create greater access to the executive suite with specific feedback and ban the use of “executive presence” as a moving barrier to women’s advancement.

For more on this topic, read my post "Vague Feedback is of 'Lacks Executive Presence' is blocking senior women's advancement."